Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kuldeep Singh And Another vs Pritam Kaur on 14 December, 2012

Author: Jaswant Singh

Bench: Jaswant Singh

CR 7509 of 2012                                          1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                                        CR 7509/2012
                                          Date of decision:14/12/2012

Kuldeep Singh and another
                                         .............Petitioners

                       v.

Pritam Kaur

                                         .............Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH



Present:-   Mr.Ramesh Chand Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

The tenants are in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, assailing the order dated 18.10.2012 whereby their application under Order 11 Rules 14 and 15 CPC for directing the NRI landlady to produce her passport has been dismissed.

It is apparent that the respondent/landlady had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 on 15.10.2010 with the assertions that she is an NRI, owner of the property since last five years and needs the demised shop for her use and occupation since she intends to settle in India. It is also apparent from the reading of the impugned order that during the evidence of the landlady, her Attorney Harbhajan Singh Batra appeared as PW3 and brought the original passport of the landlady during his testimony as well as cross examination. It further cannot be disputed that the said PW3 specifically stated that he had brought the original CR 7509 of 2012 2 passport of the landlady Pritam Kaur.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition and is of the considered opinion that the learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application by noticing that ample opportunities had been availed by the tenant and thus the present application was only an effort to delay the matter.

Dismissed.



14.12.2012.                                         (Jaswant Singh)
joshi                                                   Judge