REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JITENDER KUMAR Appellant

V/S

R.S. Virk Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VIR BHAN V. AVTAR KRISHAN ETC. [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RAM PIARI V. M/S. DELHI FRUIT COMPANY AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR V. HARPAL SINGH BANWAIT AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
HARBILAS RAI BANSAL V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
SATYAWATI SHARMA (DEAD) BY LRS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA V. VED PARKASH GUPTA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
DHANNALAL V. KALAWATIBAI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
KANTA GOEL VS. B P PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
PAL SINGH VS. SUNDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ZENOBIA BHANOT VS. P K VASUDEVA [REFERRED TO]
POKHAR VS. RAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
INDIA UMBRELLA MANUFACTURING CO VS. BHAGABANDEI AGARWALLA [REFERRED TO]
P SURYANARAYANA VS. K S MUDDUGOWRAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER PRASAD JAIN VS. MANOHAR LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. GURMEJ SINGH [REFERRED TO]
C C YI VS. JANAKIDEVI ANANTLAL GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA DASS VS. RAM PIARI [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL TAKHAR VS. GURINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER VS. BHIM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. SUSHIL KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL KRISHAN VS. AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT SINGH CHADHA VS. JASBIR SINGH LIKHARI [REFERRED TO]
RAM PIARI VS. DR. KESHO RAM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 07.03.2011 of the Rent Controller, whereby application of the petitioner-tenant under Section 13A (4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Haryana Act) seeking leave to defend the petition filed by respondent-tenant under Section 13A (1-A) of the Haryana Act, was dismissed and the petition of the landlord was accepted.

(2.) It is claimed that neither the Rent Controller followed the procedure ordained for deciding petition under Section 13-A of the Haryana Act nor took into account the facts pleaded by the petitioner-tenant in his application, whereby leave to defend the ejectment petition against him, had been sought. It is elaborated that neither the summons had been issued to the tenant in the prescribed form under the Act nor position of a co-owner was rightly interpreted by the Rent Controller. It is averred that mere owner of the property would not be deemed to be a landlord under the Act in absence of existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Canvassing that the revisionist-tenant had not been inducted by respondent no. 1 (the petitioner herein) it is claimed that even otherwise he was holding only a meagre share in the property, and thus could not seek ejectment of the tenant.

(3.) In addition, it is claimed that building is non-residential one, whereas, provisions of Section 13-A and 13 (3)(a)(i) are confined to residential premises. It is averred that ground on which the eviction is being sought being available only under Section 13 (3)(a)(i) such relief would not be available under Section 13-A of the Haryana Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

JITENDER KUMAR Vs. R.S. VIRK

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address