Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.53 seconds)Section 13 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 18A in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 19 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal vs Harcharan Singh And Another on 7 September, 2010
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:
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
10. Thus, the pendency of the earlier petition and that their witnesses
were being examined or not was of no relevance under Section 13-B of the
Act especially keeping in view that under Section 13-B of the Act, there is a
presumption of the bona fide requirement of the landlord as held in Baldev
Singh Bajwa's case (supra). The other 2 grounds that there was no notice
of termination of tenancy and that some information has been obtained
under the RTI Act would not also have any bearing on the application under
Section 13-B in view of the limited scope of examining the issue of the right
to raise a triable issue before the Rent Controller and that .` of the tenant to
contend and hold out that the application filed by the landlord was not
maintainable does not warrant entertainment under the revisional
jurisdiction of the Act.
Section 18 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010
7. The said submission has been considered and all the documents
appended along with the present petition have been perused and after
considering the same, this Court feels that the initial hurdle of the petitioner
has been cleared in the said decision since this Court in the above-cited
judgment has considered the said proposition as to whether the application
for amendment would be maintainable for leave to contest in view of the
fact that there is a limitation of 15 days to file the application for leave to
contest under Section 18-A of the Act and in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Bassi Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi AIR
2010 SC 3791 that in application filed under Section 18-A of the Act,
beyond a period of 15 days, delay of even one day is not maintainable.
M/S Ghazal Restaurant And Another vs Mrs.Samarbir Kaur @ Samarbir And Others on 2 May, 2011
However, in the case of M/s Ghazal Restaurant (supra), it has been held
that where the amendments are sought not working to the in-justice to the
CR No.767 of 2012 8
other side and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of
controversy between the parties and any subsequent event(s) which are
necessary for decision of the application, such amendments can be allowed.