Sita Ram Vs. Malwinder Kaur
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2009 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.30155 of 2008]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.30155 of 2008]
Petitioner: Sita Ram
Respondent: Malwinder Kaur
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2009 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.30155 of 2008]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.30155 of 2008]
Judges: B.N. Agrawal & G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 2009
Head Note:
Tenancy Laws
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Section 18 – Rent controller directed appellant to vacate the premises – High Court affirming the order. Held the ground set out by the appellant in the application for grant of leave merited acceptance. Rent Controller and High Court committed serious error by declining to entertain the same. Order of evidence passed by the Rent Controller is legally unsustainable. Appeal is allowed. (Paras 3-4)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Section 18 – Rent controller directed appellant to vacate the premises – High Court affirming the order. Held the ground set out by the appellant in the application for grant of leave merited acceptance. Rent Controller and High Court committed serious error by declining to entertain the same. Order of evidence passed by the Rent Controller is legally unsustainable. Appeal is allowed. (Paras 3-4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By an order dated 28.3.2007, the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act’) for grant of leave to contest the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13B of the Act and directed him to handover vacant possession of the demised premises within one month. The appellant challenged that order in civil revision but could not persuade the High Court to set aside the order of the Rent Controller. While doing so, the High Court simply reiterated the reasons recorded by the Rent Controller.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the ground set out by the appellant in the application for grant of leave merited acceptance and the Rent Controller and High Court committed serious error by declining to entertain the same. As a corollary, it must be held that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is legally unsustainable.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is granted leave to contest the suit. He shall file written statement within six weeks from today. Thereafter, the Rent Controller shall decide the petition filed by the respondent on merits.
1. Leave granted.
2. By an order dated 28.3.2007, the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act’) for grant of leave to contest the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13B of the Act and directed him to handover vacant possession of the demised premises within one month. The appellant challenged that order in civil revision but could not persuade the High Court to set aside the order of the Rent Controller. While doing so, the High Court simply reiterated the reasons recorded by the Rent Controller.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the ground set out by the appellant in the application for grant of leave merited acceptance and the Rent Controller and High Court committed serious error by declining to entertain the same. As a corollary, it must be held that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is legally unsustainable.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is granted leave to contest the suit. He shall file written statement within six weeks from today. Thereafter, the Rent Controller shall decide the petition filed by the respondent on merits.
