Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (3.42 seconds)
Documents citing Anwar Ali vs Gian Kaur on 29 November, 2010

Bansal Trading And Another vs Dr. Viranmol Singh Toor And Others on 3 September, 2013

11. Since, leave to defend has been declined, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence as per judgment of Full Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Anwar Ali vs. Gian Kaur 2001(2) RCR (Rent) 604 and thus as an automatic consequence, ejectment petition u/s 13-B is hereby allowed and respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of premises in question fully detailed in the head note of the petition to petitioners within two Singh Rattan Pal 2013.09.06 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revisions No.4525 and 4648 of 2013 (O&M) 7 months from today. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to records."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Another vs Sh.Ender Pal Singh Sahota on 9 November, 2011

It may be noticed at this stage that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anwar Ali vs. Gian Kaur, Civil revision No.1493 of 2010, decided on 9.11.2010, has authoritatively laid down that in a situation where under section 13-B of the Act, leave to contest is refused to the tenant brought by the NRI landlord. Eviction of the tenant has to be ordered and is an automatic consequence.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - R K Garg - Full Document

R.K.Sarin vs Baljit Kularia on 1 June, 2012

The proposition laid down in Anwar Ali's case (supra) also pertains to the fact that an ejectment order has to be passed straightway once the leave to defend application has been declined and infact, shows that the Rent Controller had initially failed to pass the order of ejectment while dismissing the application and thereafter, had pre- poned the date to pass the order of ejectment without notice to the tenant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Monjit Kaur vs Faqir Chand on 3 December, 2014

A Full Bench of this Court in Anwar Ali Vs. Gian Kaur 2012 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6417 of 2013 -5- PLR 554 examined the issue as to whether what would be the consequences following the refusal of leave to contest to tenant under Section 13-B. It was held that once leave is refused, a deeming provision is there whereby eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as natural consequence. Relevant observations read as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs Kamla Devi on 9 May, 2016

Moreover once it is held that the 1995 Act is applicable, it would be incumbent upon the Rent Controller to first pass an order on the application for leave to defend and after allowing the aggrieved party time to file a review application, then pass a separate final order. It has been argued that a Full Bench of this Court in Anwar Ali Vs. Gian Kaur, 2011 Vol.2 RCR (Rent), 604 had laid down that in the case of NRIs the order of eviction is a consequential order to an order declining leave to defend. However that ruling came on an analysis of the Act of 1949 and would not be applicable to proceedings under the 1995 Act for the reason that now a provision has been made for filing a review against the order declining an application for leave to defend.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next