Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16618 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 264
Decided on: 02.03.2022
Present:
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Ejectment of tenant – Bonafide need -- Death of landlord – Effect of -- Contention that the landlord died therefore the personal necessity ceased to exist – Held, rights of the landlord not only crystallized on the date of filing of the revision petition but also at the time when the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction – Petitioner failed to point out any error in the orders passed by the Rent controller as well as the Appellate Authority -- Revision petition dismissed.
(Para 3-8)
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The hearing of the case is being held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.
2. This revision petition has been filed while assailing the correctness of the concurrent judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority while ordering eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises i.e. a shop, on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlord.
3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the landlord died on 02.11.2014, therefore, the personal necessity ceased to exist. He submits that in view of the subsequent development, the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are required to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the legal representative of the original landlord, contends that while deciding the revision petition, the court is required to examine the legality and propriety of the judgments. He further submits that the petitioner after successfully delaying the decision of the case for a period of more than 10 years, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the death of the landlord which is inevitable.
5. In the present case, a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was filed on 24.10.2009. The rent controller, after examining the evidence, found merit in the case of the landlord and therefore ordered the ejectment of the petitioner.
6. The first appeal, filed by the tenant before the appellate authority, was also dismissed on 25.07.2014. The rights of the landlord not only crystallized on the date of filing of the revision petition but also at the time when the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction. The dispute in the present case is with regard to a small shop. The tenant cannot be permitted to take advantage of the delay. A revisional court is required to examine the correctness and legality of the order passed. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the orders passed by the Rent controller as well as the Appellate Authority in this regard.
7. Hence, no ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction is made out.
8. Dismissed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Petition dismissed.
********