VED PARKASH ARYA Vs. MADAN MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall stand disposed of two RSA No.35 of 1997 and RSA No.2610 of 2002, as both these appeals are inter connected and parties to the dispute are common. RSA No.35 of 1997 (O&M)

(2.) Ingenuity of the human mind while making effort to circumvent the laws has no bounds. This is a classic case which proves that a landlord would go to any extent to circumvent the provisions of the rent protection law, i.e. The East Punjab Restriction Act, 1949. (i) Whether the court while adjudicating upon the dispute must go to the route of the case and unearth the evil design by lifting the veil? (ii) Whether the first appellate court, before setting aside a judgment passed by the learned trial court, is required to analyse the reasons given by the learned trial court and after critical appraisal thereof give its own reasons while disagreeing or setting aside the reasons given by the learned trial court?

(3.) Some facts are required to be noticed. Respondent Madan Mohan Singh (Appellant in RSA No.2610 of 2002 and respondent in RSA No.35 of 197) was allotted a Booth No.186, Sector-35 D, Chandigarh on hire purchase basis.