Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Banke Ram vs Smt. Sarasti Devi on 17 December, 1976
9. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent was having vacant portion of basement of the building in which
tenanted premises is situated and this fact was not disclosed by the
respondent in her petition and site plan, thus, she has concealed material
facts from the court. It is also contended that even the respondent has not
disclosed about vacation of shops by the tenants and re-letting of the same
to another tenants during the pendency of the petition. In this regard, the
Rent Controller has observed in its order that although the respondent has
not pleaded the necessary ingredients in the petition itself, but still she has
not denied the factum of renting out of her other properties and vacating.
Hence, on this score it cannot be termed that the respondent has concealed
the material facts. In fact, witness has answered all the queries regarding
rent out of the shop to other persons from time to time. The Appellate
Authority, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, affirmed the
findings returned by the Rent Controller. This court finds no illegality or
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -8-
perversity in the findings so returned by the courts below. Reliance in this
regard may be placed upon the judgment rendered in M/s Bhatia Cloth
House vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta, 2008 (4) RCR(Civil) 250 and Raj
Kumar vs. Budha Mal 2011(2) RCR (Rent) 60, wherein it has been held
that "Having perused the judgment in Banke Ram's case (supra), this Court
is of the opinion that of course ingredients of sub-section (b) and (c) of
Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the 1949 Act are to be necessarily pleaded in the
eviction petition, however, as held by the Full Bench in paragraph 12 of the
judgment, this Court is of the opinion that it should not be understood that
under no circumstances, in the absence of pleadings, the evidence
regarding the ingredients envisaged under sub-section (b) and (c) can be
looked into. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, if parties were fully aware
about the ingredients of sub-section (b) and (c) at the time of leading
evidence and both the parties have led evidence on these issues, then
petition cannot be thrown out merely because the landlord has failed to
plead ingredients of sub-section (b) and (c) in the eviction petition.".
Om Parkash vs Mohinder Sachdeva (Since Deceased) on 22 May, 2019
In support
of his arguments, learned Senior counsel relied upon judgments rendered in
Om Parkash vs. Mohinder Sachdeva (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.1562 of 2019, decided on 22.05.2019, Jai Parkash (since deceased)
through LRs vs. Sanjeev Bansal (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.7676 of 2013, decided on 28.03.2019, Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs. Mulji
@ Mulchand, 2017(2) RCR (Rent) 391, Smt. Prabha Sehgal and others vs.
Shri Subhash Sahoonja and others, 2018(2) RCR (Rent) 599, Hukam
Chand vs. Saroj Rani, 2018(1) PLR 381, Ram Paul vs. Vijay Kumar and
others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 649, Gurbaj Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and
others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 518, M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 606,
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -6-
Shri Sukhbir Singh vs. Dr. I.P. Singh, 2012(2) RCR (Rent) 409, Anil
Bajaj and another vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 974, Satish
Kumar Khurana vs. H.S. Bajaj, 2016(2) RCR (Rent) 348, Mohinder Kaur
vs. Balwinder Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 460, Thankamony Amma &
Ors. vs. Omana Amma N. & Ors., 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 312 and Daya Rani
and another vs. Shabbir Ahmed, 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 365.
Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs Mulji @ Mulchand on 27 July, 2017
In support
of his arguments, learned Senior counsel relied upon judgments rendered in
Om Parkash vs. Mohinder Sachdeva (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.1562 of 2019, decided on 22.05.2019, Jai Parkash (since deceased)
through LRs vs. Sanjeev Bansal (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.7676 of 2013, decided on 28.03.2019, Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs. Mulji
@ Mulchand, 2017(2) RCR (Rent) 391, Smt. Prabha Sehgal and others vs.
Shri Subhash Sahoonja and others, 2018(2) RCR (Rent) 599, Hukam
Chand vs. Saroj Rani, 2018(1) PLR 381, Ram Paul vs. Vijay Kumar and
others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 649, Gurbaj Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and
others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 518, M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 606,
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -6-
Shri Sukhbir Singh vs. Dr. I.P. Singh, 2012(2) RCR (Rent) 409, Anil
Bajaj and another vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 974, Satish
Kumar Khurana vs. H.S. Bajaj, 2016(2) RCR (Rent) 348, Mohinder Kaur
vs. Balwinder Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 460, Thankamony Amma &
Ors. vs. Omana Amma N. & Ors., 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 312 and Daya Rani
and another vs. Shabbir Ahmed, 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 365.
British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) on 17 July, 2003
In support
of his arguments, learned Senior counsel relied upon judgments rendered in
Om Parkash vs. Mohinder Sachdeva (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.1562 of 2019, decided on 22.05.2019, Jai Parkash (since deceased)
through LRs vs. Sanjeev Bansal (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.7676 of 2013, decided on 28.03.2019, Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs. Mulji
@ Mulchand, 2017(2) RCR (Rent) 391, Smt. Prabha Sehgal and others vs.
Shri Subhash Sahoonja and others, 2018(2) RCR (Rent) 599, Hukam
Chand vs. Saroj Rani, 2018(1) PLR 381, Ram Paul vs. Vijay Kumar and
others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 649, Gurbaj Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and
others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 518, M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 606,
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -6-
Shri Sukhbir Singh vs. Dr. I.P. Singh, 2012(2) RCR (Rent) 409, Anil
Bajaj and another vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 974, Satish
Kumar Khurana vs. H.S. Bajaj, 2016(2) RCR (Rent) 348, Mohinder Kaur
vs. Balwinder Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 460, Thankamony Amma &
Ors. vs. Omana Amma N. & Ors., 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 312 and Daya Rani
and another vs. Shabbir Ahmed, 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 365.
Thankamony Amma vs Omana Amma N. on 13 August, 2019
In support
of his arguments, learned Senior counsel relied upon judgments rendered in
Om Parkash vs. Mohinder Sachdeva (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.1562 of 2019, decided on 22.05.2019, Jai Parkash (since deceased)
through LRs vs. Sanjeev Bansal (since deceased) through LRs, CR
No.7676 of 2013, decided on 28.03.2019, Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs. Mulji
@ Mulchand, 2017(2) RCR (Rent) 391, Smt. Prabha Sehgal and others vs.
Shri Subhash Sahoonja and others, 2018(2) RCR (Rent) 599, Hukam
Chand vs. Saroj Rani, 2018(1) PLR 381, Ram Paul vs. Vijay Kumar and
others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 649, Gurbaj Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and
others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 518, M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 606,
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -6-
Shri Sukhbir Singh vs. Dr. I.P. Singh, 2012(2) RCR (Rent) 409, Anil
Bajaj and another vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 974, Satish
Kumar Khurana vs. H.S. Bajaj, 2016(2) RCR (Rent) 348, Mohinder Kaur
vs. Balwinder Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 460, Thankamony Amma &
Ors. vs. Omana Amma N. & Ors., 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 312 and Daya Rani
and another vs. Shabbir Ahmed, 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 365.
Sat Parkash Chaudhary vs Kewal Krishan Malhotra on 6 September, 2010
But in the judgment rendered in
Sat Prakash Chaudhry vs. Kewal Krishan Malhotra, 2010(4) PLR 622
it has been held that, "there is no dispute to the proposition of law as
enunciated in the Full Bench judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -7-
for the petitioner. But, at the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious to
the fact that mere non-pleading of a fact, which is enshrined in the statute,
can always be rectified if a relevant objection is taken at the initial stage.
The petitioner failed to take any such objection in his reply to the petition.
The pleadings have to be considered broadly in a rent petition where it is
not captive to the strict law of interpretation which may be the situation in
a civil suit. In rent proceedings, the Rent Controller is merely obliged to
hold an inquiry to look into the averments which have been made in the
petitioner."
Gurbaj Singh vs Parshotam Singh And Others on 31 May, 2011
This view has been followed in a subsequent case Gurbaj
Singh vs. Parshotam Singh (2011) 3 PLR 653.
Dr. S.S.Mann vs A.K.Sharma on 23 July, 2013
The
same view has been taken in the judgment rendered in S.S. Maan vs. A.K.
Sharma reported in 2013(4)RCR(Civil) 154 wherein para 8 it has been
held that "It is cardinal principle of law that technicalities are handmaids
of justice and they should not be hindrance in imparting substantial justice.
In the present case, it has not been shown by learned Counsel for the tenant
as to how any prejudice has been caused to him by non-pleading of the
ingredients as referred by him in his arguments. No doubt, the pleading of
all the ingredients are necessary for any person to seek relief, but at the
same time if the party leads positive evidence to prove a certain ingredient,
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -9-
although not pleaded then the Court cannot thrown him away on mere
technicalities, if it is otherwise proved that no prejudice has been caused to
him". The authorities relied upon by learned Senior counsel for the
respondent-landlady also stand on the same footing.
Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores vs Srinivasaiah on 6 February, 1998
5. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners-tenants argues that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller
on issues No.1 and 3 are erroneous and the same have been recorded
without discussing the evidence produced by the petitioners. It is also
contended that similarly findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in
para 16 and 17 of the judgment are erroneous and the same are liable to be
set aside. It is argued that the ingredients of Section 13 of the Act are
necessary to be pleaded and in the absence thereof, the petition is liable to
be dismissed. It is submitted that the respondent was having vacant portion
of basement of the building in which tenanted premises is situated and this
fact was not disclosed by the respondent in her petition and site plan, thus,
she has concealed material facts from the court, but both the courts below
have erroneously held regarding suitability of the respondent. It is also
contended that even the respondent has not disclosed about vacation of
shops by the tenants and re-letting of the same to another tenants during the
pendency of the petition. It is stated that all these factors show that
sufficient accommodations remained in possession of the respondent and if
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 01:41:40 :::
CR-8176-2018 -4-
she really had the personal requirement, she must have started her business
in that portion, but she did not do so. In support of his arguments, learned
counsel relied upon judgments rendered in Banke Ram vs. Shrimati
Sarasvati Devi, 1977(1) RCR (Rent) 595, Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware
Stores vs. Srinivasaiah, 1998(1) RCR (Rent) 235, Joginder Singh
Sawhney vs. Harbans Lal, 2001(1) RCR (Rent) 528, Keshetariya Punjab
Khadi Mandal, Kharar vs. Prem Kumar and others, 2012(2) RCR (Rent)
516, Jatinder Kaur vs. S.K. Dhaliwal, 2015(2) RCR (Rent) 194, Ram Pal
Saini vs. Surinder Singh, 2016(1) RCR (Rent) 321, Smt. Banarsi Devi
Jain vs. M.P. Transport Company and another, 2008(1) RCR (Rent) 536
and Gurbaj Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and others 2011(4) RCR (Civil)