Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Parkash Son Of Amar Nath Resident Of ... vs Shiv Mandir Chhangewala (Regd) Bassi ... on 17 August, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No.3439 of 1999(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3439 of 1999(O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.08.2012
Jai Parkash son of Amar Nath resident of Mohalla Chakri Bassi
Pathana Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
... Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Mandir Chhangewala (Regd) Bassi Pathana Distt.
Fatehgarh Sahib through its General Secretary Dharaminder
Kumar Banda.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petition is filed at the instance of the tenant challenging the order of eviction rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority. The dispute that arises for consideration was the quantum of rent. The landlord contended that the rent was `150/- per month while the tenant contended that the rent was only `10/- per month. It was brought in evidence through AW1 Dharaminder Kumar Banda, General Secretary of Shiv Mandir that there was a resolution of CR No.3439 of 1999(O&M) [2] the Trustees regarding the rent payable by the tenant and resolution No.7 dated 29.05.1994 specifically finalized the rent for the tenant as `150/- per month and the tenant had actually signed the resolution book in acknowledgment of his liability. The Appellate Court observed that the appellant-tenant had not even rebutted the resolution in any manner. The Court observed that apart from a bald denial of the liability to pay the rent @ `150/- per month, there was nothing substantial that was brought through his contention that the resolution would not bind him although he has signed the same that the rent was `150/- per month. I find that there is no error in the order of the Court below for a judicial intervention.
2. The revision petition is dismissed.
17th August, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE