Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-1977
Reported in : (1977)79PLR238
ORDER1. Madan Gopal (hereinafter called the landlord) filed a petition for eviction of Davinder Nath petitioner (to whom I will refer in this order as the tenant) under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which was decreed ex parte in favour of the landlord on Sept. 6, 1973. During the pendency of the petition for eviction before the Civil Court, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (Haryana Act NO. 11 of 1974) was passed and enforced with effect from April 27, 1973. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge was correct in continuing the proceedings which were pending before him as Rent Controller at the time of coming into force of the principal Haryana Act because of the requirements of the proviso to S. 24 of that Act. The relevant portion of S. 24 is quoted below:-- 'The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949) is hereby repealed: Provided that such repeal shall not affect any proceedings pending or order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-09-1977
Reported in : AIR1977P& H335
Surinder Singh, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1457 and 1458 of 1963, which arise out of two separate suits filed by the two brothers of Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh (since deceased), the then Ruler of the princely State of Nabha, which now forms a part of Punjab. On July 13, 1960, Maharaj Kumar Kharagh Singh (who has also died during the pendency of his appeal) filed Civil Suit No. 40 for possession of land known as 'Bir Ranadhai', situated in village Agaul, Tahsil Nabha, District Patiala. His brother, Maharaj Kumar Gurbax Singh, filed a similar Civil Suit No. 41 on the same day. Both these suits were tried independently by Subordinate Judge First Class, Patiala, and the claim of the plaintiffs was decreed. The State of Punjab went up in appeal before the District Judge, Patiala, who, though by means of separate judgments, but on absolutely identical considerations, accepted the appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits. The two plaintiffs in the third ...
Tag this Judgment!