Khajan Chand Vs. Onkar Chand

Khajan Chand vs Onkar Chand

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided May 12, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919031

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/919031
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge: Deepak Gupta, J.
Decided On: May 12, 2011
Case Number: CMPMO No 115 of 2011
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (C.P.C); The H.P. Urban Rent Control Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khajan Chand

Advocate Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Adv.

Respondent

Onkar Chand

Advocate Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (C.P.C); The H.P. Urban Rent Control Act

Excerpt

1. by means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned rent controller, theog, district shimla whereby the defence of the respondent-tenant was struck off. it appears that the learned rent controller closed the right of the respondenttenant to file reply and struck off the defence only on the ground that period of 90 days had expired from the date of his service. 2. the learned rent controller lost sight of the fact that only those provisions of the code of civil procedure are applicable to rent proceedings which have been specifically otherwise only the principles of the code of civil procedure are applicable and the maximum time limit fixed for filing the written statement in the code of civil procedure cannot be said to be a principle of the code of civil procedure. on this short ground, the petition will have to be allowed. 3. therefore, the petition is allowed and the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned rent controller, theog is set aside and the respondent-tenant is granted one opportunity to file the written statement. i have been informed at the bar that prior to the stay order granted on 7.4.2011, the landlord had already led some evidence and the tenant has also cross-examined the same. in view of the fact that now the tenant has been permitted to file written statement, in case the landlord wants to examine any other evidence or re-examine any of the witnesses he can do so. 4. parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 17.5.2011, the date already fixed. this petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of rs. 2,000/-. costs to be paid within one month, failing which the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. “dasti copy”

Full Judgment

1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Theog, District Shimla whereby the defence of the respondent-tenant was struck off. It appears that the learned Rent Controller closed the right of the respondenttenant to file reply and struck off the defence only on the ground that period of 90 days had expired from the date of his service.

2. The learned Rent Controller lost sight of the fact that only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to rent proceedings which have been specifically Otherwise only the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and the maximum time limit fixed for filing the written statement in the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be a principle of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this short ground, the petition will have to be allowed.

3. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Theog is set aside and the respondent-tenant is granted one opportunity to file the written statement. I have been informed at the bar that prior to the stay order granted on 7.4.2011, the landlord had already led some evidence and the tenant has also cross-examined the same. In view of the fact that now the tenant has been permitted to file written statement, in case the landlord wants to examine any other evidence or re-examine any of the witnesses he can do so.

4. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.5.2011, the date already fixed. This petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Costs to be paid within one month, failing which the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. “Dasti Copy”

Same Court & Year Himachal Pradesh · 2011 Same Parties Khajan Chand vs Onkar Chand Same Subject Civil Same Judge Deepak Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (C.P.C); The H.P. Urban Rent Co...