High Court of Punjab And Haryana · 2011
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
allowed and the impugned order is set aside
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. .....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. -- Present: Mr.Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) -- This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.5.2008 whereby prayer of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend the ejectment petition filed under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was declined. During the pendency of this revision petition, petitioner moved C.M.No.11386-CII of 2011, seeking permission to place on record certain sale deeds to contend that the aforesaid sale deeds were necessary to be brought on record to demonstrate that the respondent landlord has already sold portion of the demised premises and the said fact clearly establishes that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and, therefore, leave to defend should have been granted to the petitioner as there were triable issues. Notice of this application was given to the counsel for the respondent. Despite opportunity granted, no reply has been filed. However, C.R.No.3317 of 2008 2 learned counsel Shri Puneet Jindal, appearing on behalf of the respondent very fairly stated that let opportunity be granted to the petitioner tenant and direction be given to the Rent Controller to decide the petition on merits in accordance with law after granting leave to defend to the petitioner. However, he has submitted that since the matter is pending since 2006, the Rent Controller be directed to decide the matter in a time bound frame. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed under section 13-B of the Rent Act by the respondent. The Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and is further directed to decide the Rent Application pending before him within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 25.8.2011. August 11, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: allowed and the impugned order is set aside
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 11 Aug 2011. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.