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 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sewa Singh vs Mohinder Singh on 20 August, 2010

CR No. 1822 of 2009
                                   -1-
                                  *****

        IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                   CHANDIGARH


                              CR No. 1822 of 2009 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision : 20.08.2010

Sewa Singh

                                                        .......... Petitioner
                              Versus

Mohinder Singh
                                                      ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present :    Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                  ****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority, ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.

The eviction was sought on the ground of personal necessity.

When this matter came up for hearing on 1.4.2009, the petition was not contested on merit, and only request made was, that the tenant be granted six months time to vacate the premises. It was in view of the request of the petitioner, that this Court issued notice of motion qua the request only.

The order passed by this Court on 1.4.2009, reads as CR No. 1822 of 2009 -2- ***** under :-

"The only request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for the grant of six months time to the tenant to vacate the plot.
Notice of motion qua that request only 16.04.2009.
Dasti only."

The reading of the order would show, that the petitioner did not contest the petition on merit, and had only prayed for six month's time to vacate the plot, which already stands expired, therefore, nothing left here to be decided in this revision by this Court.

Dismissed.


20.08.2010                                     (VINOD K. SHARMA)
  'sp'                                              JUDGE