Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Bank Of India vs Neelam Ahluwalia Nakra And Others ... on 5 May, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CR No. 2867 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on 05.5.2011.
State Bank of India -- Petitioner
vs.
Neelam Ahluwalia Nakra and others --Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms. Esha Gupta, Advocate,for the applicant/petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) CM Nos.11788 & 11789-CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for.
CR No.2867 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia, contends that while deciding application filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short,'the Act'), the Rent Controller had noticed that the landlady has to prove that she requires the demised premises for bonafide personal necessity and also noticed the contention of the tenant but had not decided the same. Learned counsel also refers to Annexures P-1 and P-3 which are letters written by the landlady to the bank where she wanted to renew the lease of the bank for a period of 12 years with enhancement of rent. It is alleged that if the intention of the landlady was to enhance the rent and to continue the lease for 12 years, there was no bonafide necessity for which application could have been filed CR No.2867 of 2011 -2- under Section 18-A of the Act.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr.V.Ramswaroop Advocate, who is on caveat, appears and submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Rent Controller to record a finding on the issue of bonafide necessity as well. He has submitted that the Rent Controller may be directed to decide the application after remand within a specified period as it pertains to a filing of an application under Section 13-B of the Act.
In view of his statement, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, Mohali, to decide the question of bonafide necessity as well which has been left to be decided in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the date already fixed before the Court below is 19.5.2011. The Rent Controller shall decide the question of bonafide necessity as well within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties 05.5.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge