Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal vs Harcharan Singh And Another on 7 September, 2010

Amar Manchanda & Another vs Abhey Man Singh Sidhu @ Abhey Man Sidhu & ... on 20 March, 2012

The amendment which is sought to be done in the application for leave to defend is only an addition to the earlier grounds which have already been taken and the additional ground which are now sought to be taken in para Nos. 11 to 15 regarding fresh tenancy during the pendency of the earlier petition and the increase of rent, lack of notice for termination and information under the RTI Act regarding the status of landlord No.1 not being an NRI are not relevant for the necessary decision of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Whether the rent is being increased or not and that the earlier lease deed is not a relevant issue as noticed above and similarly, the earlier petition filed under Section 13 of the Act for eviction prior to the extention of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act to Chandigarh has also no relevance as a fresh right has been created in the favour of the landlord after his arriving at Chandigarh. This Court in Dr.Ved Pal Kaushal Vs. Harcharan Singh & another 2010 (4) PLR 637 has held as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ranjit Puri vs Dr.Mohinder Paul Singh on 3 April, 2012

It was further submitted that in Dr.Ved Pal Kaushal Vs. Harcharan Singh & another 2010 (4) PLR 637, the issue was again sought to be raised that a person who had come to India before 31.05.2001, whether he would be falling under the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the Act and is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act and SLP No.189 of 2011 is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Similarly, two SLP Nos.13091-92 of 2011 are also pending decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the definition of NRI landlord. Accordingly, it is contended that the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was in error in declining the stay since the issue in dispute was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Surinder Kaur vs Ram Kishan And Others on 25 April, 2012

In this view, I am supported by judgments of this Court in the cases of Lakhwinder Kumar (supra) and Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal (supra). The contention that landlords are not owners of demised property is untenable. Admittedly, Basant Ram had taken the demised property from landlords. Moreover, landlords have placed on record sale deed dated 14.10.1986 (Annexure P-2), whereby they purchased the demised property almost 20 years before the filing of the ejectment petition on 25.07.2006, and therefore, it cannot be said that landlords are not owners of the demised property. The contention that landlords are not NRIs cannot be accepted because no such plea was even raised in application for leave to contest the ejectment petition. On the other hand, the landlords have annexed copies of their passports to depict that they are NRIs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - L N Mittal - Full Document
1