Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-01-1979
Reported in : AIR1980P& H188
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the appellate authority under S. 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has the jurisdiction to remand the whole case to the Rent Controller for decision afresh is the sole, though meaningful, question which falls for determination in these two civil revision petitions before us on a reference. Directly linked therewith is also the issue of the correctness of the view expressed first by Grover, J., in Civil Revn. No. 641 of l957--Moti Ram v. Ram Sahai, decided on Apri1 29, 1958 (Punj) and its categoric af9rmance by the Division Bench in Krishan Lal Seth v. Shrimati Pritam Kumari, (1961) 63 Pun LR 865.2. It is manifest that the aforesaid question is pristinely legal. Nevertheless the matrix of facts giving rise to the issue does cell for notice. Raghunath Jalota petitioner instituted two separate applications for ejectment under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act)--one against Labhu Ram and Ramesh Duggal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-15-1979
Reported in : AIR1980P& H319
R.N. Mittal, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 337 of 1978 and 1366 of 1977. The short question that arises for determination in these cases is whether a tenant who validly sublet the building before coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Act) within the area of Chandigarh is liable to ejectment after its enforcement on the ground mentioned in Section 13(2)(ii)(a).2. The facts which gave rise to Civil Revision No. 337 of 1978 are as follows:--Surjit Singh is the owner of House No. 3255 situated in Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. He let it out to Rattan Lal Aggarwal, respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. Subsequently, by the consent of the parties, the rent was increased to Rs. 470/- per month with effect from Mar. 19, 1975. The respondent before enforcement of the Rent Act sublet a part of the building to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-15-1979
Reported in : 1980CriLJ1232
Harbans Lal, J.1.This appeal on behalf of the State is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, dated October 31, 1977, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 15(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter called the Act). According to the prosecution case, Shri Ram Raji Jindal, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. R.S. Agnihotri, went to the shop of the accused-respondent on August 21, 1975, at about 8.35 A.M. and purchased 660 millilitres milk for Rs. 1.45 out of ten litres of milk lying for sale. This milk was divided into three equal parts and put into three separate bottles. After adding 18 drops of formalin, the bottles were sealed in accordance with rules. One bottle was handed over to the accused, the other was deposited with the Chief Medical Officer, which was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, at Chandigarh, and the third bottle remained with the Chief Medical Officer. One copy of the memo al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1979P& H262
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. The determination of the ambit of sub-ss. (2)(a) and (3) of S. 97 of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, is the legal issue of some substance that falls for consideration in this referred revision petition.2. This revision petition, in the first instance, came up before Goyal, J. who finding himself unable to subscribe to the view enunciated by Sharma, J. in two reported decisions in Darshan Kumar v. Raghunandan Sharma, (1978) 80 Pun LR 368 and Surjit Singh v. Sardara Singh, (1978) 80 Pun LR 779 and a similar view taken in Orissa High Court decision reported in Nanda Kishore Moharana v. Mahabir Prasad Lath, AIR 1978 Orissa 129 and also finding a contrary view being taken in Mohan Dass v. Kamala Devi, AIR 1978 Raj 127, referred the matter to the larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us.3. In order to appreciate the legal point, a reference to certain basic facts at this very stage would be relevant. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!