Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Lakhwinder Kumar vs Pavitter Kaur (Dead) Through Lrs on 7 September, 2009

Bachittar Singh vs Jaswant Singh Saggu on 12 March, 2012

5. Keeping in view the above contentions, the Rent Controller held that admittedly the father of the petitioner was owner of the two shops and the residential portion and as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-06, the petitioner was owner of the suit property since last more than five years as required under Section 13-B of the Rent Act by placing reliance upon Lakhwinder Kumar and others Vs. Pavittar Kaur through Lrs and others 2010 (Suppl.) CCC 033 and accordingly, keeping in view the bonafide necessity and need of the landlord came to the conclusion that he wanted to settle in India and had been given a right under Section 13-B of the Rent Act to invoke his choice once in a life to get one building vacated and thus held that no triable issue was raised and dismissed the application for leave to contest and ordered ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ram Lal vs Ram Dass on 11 November, 2010

This argument, raised by Mr. Punchhi is liable to be rejected as now it has been held in various judgments of this Court, affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that various tenancies in one building constitutes one composite building and Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 3 various units, rented out at the same time, can be made subject matter of the ejectment. It has been held by this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavittar Kaur (dead) though LRs (Civil Revision No. 1385 of 2004 (O&M) decided on 7.9.2009) and the other connected revision petitions, that even if there are more than one tenant in a single building, the Non Resident Indian is entitled to evict all of them. The Special Leave Petition, filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Manohar Lal Mahajan vs Kuldip Singh Mahal on 20 March, 2012

5. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings, came to the conclusion that there was an allotment letter No. 3725 dated 31.03.1970 issued by the Chandigarh Administration, U.T., Chandigarh in favour of the owner and also took into consideration the occupation certificate issued by the Chandigarh Administration for use of the building in question. The factum that the owner was having the citizenship of USA was noticed in view of the passport issued in favour of the owner and it was noticed that Sh. H.S. Mahal was none else but the father of the owner and, therefore, he had let out the premises in question. The intention to come back was also noticed and accordingly, it was held that all the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act were duly fulfilled and the present petition was filed after a period of more than five years of allotment thereof. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Lakhwinder Kumar vs. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through LRs 2010 (3) RCR 279 to hold that it was not necessary for the owner to let out the premises and even an authorized person can let out the same premises.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - 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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Karam Singh Sidhu (Nri) on 18 May, 2012

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-landlord contended that respondent is NRI because after coming back from Liberia, he went to America (USA) and is also Green Card holder there and is also senior citizen of NRI Sabha, Punjab. It was also argued that Civil Revision arising out of another petition under Section 13-B of the Act relating to ground floor, wherein leave to contest the ejectment petition was granted, was withdrawn because regarding the same ground floor, ejectment order had been passed against the tenant under Section 13 of the Act by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority. It was also argued that need of the landlord is bona fide because he cannot carry on business in basement and he could seek ejectment of different tenants from the same building. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on various C. R. No. 1517 of 2006 5 judgments of this Court namely Lakhwinder Kumar vs. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through LRs reported as 2010 (3) RCR (Civil) 279, Mohinder Singh vs. Sohan Singh Sethi reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 23, Sohan Lal vs. Swaran Kaur reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 407 and Prem Kumar Patel vs. Inderjit Singh Grewal reported as 2002 (2) RCR (Rent) 203.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Parvinder Singh vs Smt. Sandhiya on 7 October, 2013

Reliance was also placed upon the statement of PW1-Parvinder Singh- landlord who came to India to depose regarding his case as pleaded. Scanning through the statement of PW1, it was submitted that in the cross-examination, it had specifically come that the petitioner had gone to Italy on 9.7.2000 and the presentation of the rent petition was on 22.10.2001. Thus, in such circumstances, it could not be said that the petitioner was not a NRI. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RLR 488 and of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through LRs 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 279, Guriqbal Singh and another v. Gurjaib Singh 2011(3) PLR 85 and Kanta Devi and another v. Mehta Singh and another, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 716. It was submitted that the Rent Controller had erred in holding that the landlord was required to show that he had been a NRI for a period of five years. This was never the requirement as envisaged under the provisions of Section 2(dd) or Section 13-B of the Act. It was also submitted that the landlord in his statement had specifically stated that he required the demised premises for himself and for his family members. Once that Singh Gurbachan 2013.12.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No. 318 of 2006 -5- was so, the order of eviction ought to have been passed by the Rent Controller.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

M/S Firm Sohan Singh & Sons & Ors vs Ritu Sharma & Anr on 6 February, 2015

"10. .............................. But all this pleas raised by the respondent no.1 to 3 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In order to establish that applicant is Non-Resident Indian, she has placed on record photostat copy of her passport issued by Government of India, photostat copy of her residence permit issued by Government of United Kingdom, photostat copy of payment of subscription amount towards the Employee Insurance Policy by her as employees of Palfrey Girls School Queen Mary St. Walsall, West Midlands, photostat copy of letter issued by Head of Payment Virgin Media Payment Ltd to her. These documents placed on record have not been specifically denied by the respondent no.1 in his application for leave to defend or to the rejoinder filed to the reply of applicant. Nor he has challenged the genuineness of these documents. So, from this document, status of applicant as Non-Resident Indian stands proved. The reliance can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court given in case titled as "Lakhwinder Kaur versus Pavittar Kaur (dead through LRs) 2010(1) RCR, (Rent) 588. In this case it has been held that where an NRI landlady placed on record copy of passport issued by Government of United Kingdom and also identity card/certificate issued by Non-Resident Indian Sabha, Punjab to that effect, nothing more is required to be pleaded and shown by the said landlady to prove his status as Non-Resident Indian. So, in the present case in the aforesaid document placed on record by the applicant, it has been proved that she is Non-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next