REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PURAN CHAND Appellant

V/S

Jagdish Lal And Anr. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAM KISHAN DASS AND ORS. V/S. GORDHAN DASS AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KRISHAN LAL SETH V/S. SHRIMATI PRITAM KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
CHATTAR SINGH V/S. JAMBOO PARSHAD [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT RAM V/S. B. D. SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MADAN GOPAL SEHGAL V/S. OM PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
VIR BHAN V/S. AVTAR KRISHAN ETC. [REFERRED TO]
DEV RAJ V/S. TILAK RAJ DHARAM PAL ETC. [REFERRED TO]
EKNATH BHANUDAS UTANE V/S. SHANKAR RAO DEORAO JUDGE AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
HARWANT KAUR AND ORS. V/S. HARINAM SANKIRTAN MANDAL (REGD.) YAMUNA NAGAR THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT [REFERRED TO]
JOHAN TINSON AND CO. LTD. SIMLA V/S. SHRI AMAR CHAND SOOD AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
LACHMAN DASS SAIN DITTA MAL V/S. SHRI HANUWANT DASS SUD [REFERRED TO]
LT. COL. MICHEL A.R. SKINNER AND ORS. V/S. THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,HANSI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR (RETD.) P.L. MORADA V/S. SHRI S.D. BAKSHI [REFERRED TO]
NANAK CHAND V/S. INDERJIT AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHAN DAROGA V/S. ARJAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM V/S. RAM PARTAP [REFERRED TO]
NAGUBAI AMMAL VS. B SNAMA RAO [REFERRED TO]
NEDUNURI "KAMESWARAMMA VS. SAMPATI SUBBA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ATTAR SINGH VS. INDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
H N BHASIN VS. CHAMBA MAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS. SYED AHMED KHAN [REFERRED TO]
GANDA SINGH VS. RAM NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SANT RAM DAS RAJ KALKA VS. KARAM CHAND MANGAL RAM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case have already been set out in the judgment of D.B. Lal, J. In view of the importance of the questions raised, I should like to state my own reasons.

(2.) A question of far reaching importance is whether upon the facts of the present case the Respondents can be said to satisfy the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub -paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Sub -section (3) of Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Respondents, who are two brothers, live in rented accommodation with their families. They purchased the premises in dispute and applied for eviction of the Petitioner. The Appellate authority, Shri Onkar Nath, has made an order of eviction on the ground that the rented accommodation occupied by the Respondents and their families is insufficient for all of them and that the premises in dispute are required for accommodating one of the brothers and his family.

(3.) Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provides for the eviction of a tenant. Under Sec. 13(3)(a)(i) a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, in the case of a residential building, if: -

Click here to view full judgment.

PURAN CHAND Vs. JAGDISH LAL AND ANR.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address