Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-24-1999
Reported in : AIR2000P& H88; (1999)123PLR718
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Om Parkash, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa, dated 25-5-1993 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 7-10-1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord Kailash Chander had filedeviction petition under Section 13 of theHaryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') alleging thatthe petitioner is a tenant in the suit premisesand respondent No. 2, son of the petitioner,is a sub-tenant therein. It was asserted thatthe property as mentioned above has beensublet without the consent of the respondent-landlord. That is the sole ground ofeviction surviving for purposes of the presentrevision petition. By way of elucidation, itwas add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-21-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR65
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Roshan Lal and others, hereinafter described as the petitioners directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dated 25.1.1985 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated 27.9.1986. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction filed by the respondent Rattan Chand but the said order was set aside by the learned Appellate Authority.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent filed eviction petition against the petitioners asserting that there is a relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. The grounds of eviction pleaded were that the tenants had failed to pay the arrears of rent. The property was let as a shop but is being used as a godown; and lastly that the suit premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.3. The petitioners had contested the eviction petition. It was asserted that the premises is being used as a shop and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-02-1999
Reported in : (1999)123PLR234
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the eviction order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Estate Officer, UCO Bank (respondent no.2) on the basis of proceedings initiated, under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act') against M/s Brooke Bond India Limited, who was lessee of the second floor of S.C.O. No. 55-57, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh belonging to UCO Bank (respondent No. 3). It has also prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 4.1.1999 rendered by the District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal find by M/s Brook Bond Lipton India Limited.2. It is not disputed that M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd., was initially amalgamated with M/s Lipton India Limited and the new Company, namely Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., was amalgamated with petitioner-Hindustan Lever Limited. The premises in question were leased out by respondent No. 3 to M/s Brooke Bond India Limited on 26.2.1966. Vide notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-03-1999
Reported in : AIR1999P& H262; (1999)123PLR764
ORDERK.K. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner Nand Singh, a resident of village Danewala and enrolled as a voter at serial No. 83 part 66 of 117 Sardulgarh Assembly Constituency (for short to be referred as 'Constituency') seeks the setting aside of election of respondent Ajit Inder Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of village and P.O. Moffar, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa as member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab from the aforesaid constituency and further to hold the respondent guilty of committing corrupt practices under Section 123(8) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. He also seeks a declaration to the effect that the respondent aforesaid was disqualified for a period of six years because of committing corrupt practices.2. General elections for member of the Punjab State Legislative Assembly were held on 7-2-1997. The time scheduled for polling was from 7.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. respondent Ajit Inder Singh contested the election from the said Constituency of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-21-1999
Reported in : [2001]106CompCas44(P& H); (2000)124PLR598
R.L. Anand, J.1. What are the duties of a hypothecate in a case of pledge ?, will be the point for determination in the present second appeal which has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 3-3-1998 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the appeal of the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1995 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Samana, who passed a composite decree for recovery of Rs. 93,597 by sale of Zinc Sulphate and raw material etc. hypothecated with the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called 'the Bank') and by sale of the land along with superstructures as mentioned in the head note of the plaint as mortgaged with the Bank by the defendants for the realisation of the said amount along with interest and the decree was also passed jointly and severally against the parties of the defendant-firm. 2. The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner : 3. The Bank f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-15-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR401
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Roshan Lal, hereinafter described as ' the petitioner' directed against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jagraon, dated 23.12.1991 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 28.1.1997. The order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner with respect to the property in question. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- per month. It had been agreed that the rent would be paid in advance. Rent note was executed on 11.12.1985. The grounds of eviction pressed at the time when the petition for eviction was filed were that arrears of rent have not been paid and due from 9.7.1988 and that the suit property has outlived its life. The roof of the second room of the rented p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-07-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR490
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. A person subject to Army Act, if suffers an injury, when on casual leave, which ultimately resulted in his invalidation from the army service, on medical ground, would be entitled to receive the benefits of disability pension or not, is the precise question that falls for determination in this writ petition.2. The petitioner, Ex. Naik Manjit Singh, was enrolled in Bengal Engineering Group in Draftsman Trade on 3rd May, 1963. The petitioner continued to serve and was posted at Headquarter 7th Infantry Division at Ferozepur Cantt. as Naik in the year 1973. The petitioner had proceeded on pre-sanctioned 10 days casual leave to attend his younger brother's marriage at his native place. The petitioner left his Headquarter on 27th November, 1973. However, whi'e returning from the place of marriage in a jeep, to his native place, the jeep in which he was travelling met with the accident with a Truck op 3rd December, 1973. The petitioner was seriously injured and after so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-07-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR621
R.L. Anand, J.1. Constable Surinder Singh, No. 1287 has filed the present writ petition against the State of Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Punjab, seeking the direction of this Court in the nature of writ of certiorari for the quashment of the impugned order of his dismissal from service dated 9.2.1984, Annexure P-3, the order dated 31.8.194, Annexure P-4 and the order dated 17.4.1995, Annexure P-5. The petitioner has claimed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits on the ground that he joined the Police Department, Punjab, in the year 1990 and his work and conduct remained satisfactory and unblemished during the above period. He served the department sincerely and honestly. He was posted as a Constable at Police Post, Ghuman Mandi, under Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on 15.7.1992 when the petitioner became mentally upset, the Incharge of the Police Post, Kuldip Singh instructed a Home Gua...
Tag this Judgment!