Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Anwar Ali vs Gian Kaur on 29 November, 2010
The Full Bench in Anwar Ali (supra) has held that once
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2017 16:45:35 :::
Civil Revision No.2837 of 2015 (O&M) -4-
leave is refused, the eviction of the tenant has to be an automatic
consequence. The relevant observations reads as under :-
Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010
"9. The High Court further held that under the
circumstances, there was no statutory obligation upon
the Rent Controller to frame issues or to try the eviction
petition by calling upon the petitioner to lead evidence.
The High Court further held that refusal to grant leave
to contest amounts to admission of the contents of the
eviction petition and if the eviction petition itself
satisfies the requirements of Section 13-B of the 1949
Act, an order of eviction has to follow as a matter of
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2017 16:45:35 :::
Civil Revision No.2837 of 2015 (O&M) -3-
course.
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
3. Apart from the specific provisions of the Act,
reproduced above, particularly those contained in sub-
section 4 of Section 18-A, the Apex Court in Baldev
Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent)
470 : 2005(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 492 : AIR 2006 Supreme
Court 59 had occasion to deal with the very same
provisions of the Act. After an elaborate discussion,
which is available in the text of the judgment, the Apex
Court came to a conclusion that the provisions of
Section 13-B wafid-require the tenant to bring on
record evidence of a very strong character to rebut the
legal presumption that is inbuilt in Section 18-A of the
Act with regard to the need of the N.R.I. landlord in
respect of the tenanted premise. Only upon such
convincing evidence being laid i before the Rent
Controller, leave to defend can be granted, failing
which, obviously, the legal presumption with regard to
the need of the landlord would continue to hold the
field.
Section 4 in The Punjab Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Punjab Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Punjab National Bank And Another vs Sh.Ender Pal Singh Sahota on 9 November, 2011
The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order
dated 03.01.2015, whereby the Rent Controller has directed eviction on the
ground of the application for leave to contest having been filed after a delay
of almost 4 years. It has been recorded that the respondent had appeared in
the present case through munadi and there is no jurisdiction to allow the
condonation of delay and resultantly eviction has been ordered. Reliance
was placed upon the judgments passed in 'Punjab National Bank Vs.
Inderpal Singh Sahota 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 302 and 2010 (supp.) CCC
431 (P&H) to hold that an NRI landlord had a right to get one property
vacated of his choice under the provisions of Section 13-B of Rent Act.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1