Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjeet Kaur & Another vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors on 9 August, 2010
C.R. No. 3092 of 2010
-1-
*****
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 3092 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.08.2010
Sarabjeet Kaur & another
.......... Petitioners
Versus
Amarjeet Singh & Ors.
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
The Rent Controller Amritsar allowed an application moved under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended by Punjab Act 9 of 2001 read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as amended by the Punjab Act 2 of 1985.
By way of common judgment the learned Rent Controller decided five rent applications i.e. 'Amarjit Singh Vs. National Insurance etc.', 'Amarjit Singh Vs. Jeewan Kumar etc.', 'Amarjit Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar etc.', 'Amarjit Singh Vs. Sarabjit Kaur etc.', and 'Amarjit Singh Vs. Ajit Singh etc.' All the petitions were allowed.
The National Insurance Co. Limited, one of the tenant in the building, challenged the impugned order in this Court, by way of C.R. No. 3092 of 2010 -2- ***** Civil Revision No. 2670 of 2010, wherein this Court passed the following order :-
"There has been a compromise between the parties. In terms thereof, the petition shall stand dismissed as withdrawn. The findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller upholding the entitlement of the respondents-landlords to eject the petitioner- tenant from the tenanted premises shall stand affirmed. However, the petitioner herein shall have time till 10.10.2010 to vacate the tenanted premises. It is further agreed that the petitioner herein shall file an undertaking in the Registry of this Court within fifteen days from today.
Disposed of accordingly."
In view of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2670 of 2010 decided on 10.5.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to seek instructions from the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not wish to compromise the matter and showed her interest to contest this revision petition on merit, or in the alternative prayed that more time than the one granted to the National Insurance Co. Ltd., should be granted to the petitioners.
Keeping in view the fact, that the impugned order in this revision petition already stands upheld by this Court, though, on the basis of compromise, this Court is bound by the said decision, as on the similar grounds, it is not possible to record a contradictory finding.
Consequently, this revision petition is ordered to be C.R. No. 3092 of 2010 -3- ***** dismissed.
Keeping in view the fact, that in C.R. No. 2670 of 2010 the petitioner has been granted time upto 10.10.2010 to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent / landlord, the petitioners are also granted time upto 10.10.2010 to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord.
No costs.
09.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE