1. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(1) - Deposit of rent - Provisional rent deposited - Accepting the plea raised by the landlord enhanced rent and granted two months' time to deposit the same, otherwise eviction of the petitioners was to follow - Though the appeal was filed by the petitioners within a period of two months, however, the interim order was passed by the Appellate Authority only on 23.2.2011, which was beyond the period of two months granted by the Rent Controller for tendering the balance amount of rent - Mere filing of appeal will not amount to either stay of the order passed by the Rent Controller or automatic extension of time - On failure to deposit the rent finally assessed by the Rent Controller within the permitted time, a right had accrued in favour of the landlord, namely, eviction of the petitioners from the premises in dispute - After dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioners by the Appellate Authority no further time was required to be granted for tendering the rent as the period had expired before the interim order was passed. (173) PLR
  2. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(i) - Arrears of rent - Rent Controller dismissing the petition - Appellate Authority reversing the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, accepting the petition of the landlord, finding it to be a case of short tender by the tenant making a detailed order of assessment of arrears of rent with interest etc. - The tenant-bank had been called upon to make up deficiency in the short tender - Tenant instead of complying with the order took recourse to the provisions of the Indebtedness Act and made application before Rent Controller - If instead, the tenant deposits rent under the provisions of the Indebtedness Act, it is not valid tender and the tenant becomes liable to eviction. (177) PLR
  3. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(i) - Death of landlord - Tenants plea filed was that there was a dispute inter se the legal representatives and, therefore, on account of lack of clarity, the rent was paid to the mother of the petitioner and his brother and sisters and rent receipts had been issued - The Courts below have noticed that the legal representatives have appeared in favour of the tenant and admitted that they had received the rent - It is not a case of a outright denial of the relationship of landlord tenant. (178) PLR
  4. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(i) Proviso - Arrears of rent - Provisional assessment of Rent Controller - Amount deposited - Landlord offering return of excess amount received - Tenant adamant to return of the entire amount - Entire amount refunded - Such withdrawal having been made without any adjudication by the Rent Controller was at peril of the tenant himself - When adjudication was made by the Rent Controller, it ultimately went against the revisionist-tenant and was affirmed even by the Appellate Authority as there is, in fact, no tender of arrears of rent in terms of provisional assessment of arrears of rent with interest and costs of the petition - There was no option with the Rent Controller but to order eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. (176) PLR
  5. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(ii)(a) - Sub-letting Presumption raised by the appellate authority that since tenant is in employment and his son had been seen working in the premises and thus, there is sub-tenancy is clearly a mis-founded approach - Even if it be taken to be a case of non-existence of Joint Hindu Family business as is claimed by the tenant and notwithstanding such specific stand of the tenant taken in his written statement, raising a presumption of subletting by father to his son is absolutely wrong.  (178) PLR 
  6. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(ii)(h) - Change of user - That cement, chips and ply for sale of which the shop was taken on rent, are continued to be sold, it cannot be said that the shop has been put to "any other purpose" - Though sale of glass, paints and other hardware items is not specifically mentioned in the clause of Rent Note wherein sale of "cement, chips and ply" is specifically recited, it does not mean that there is any prohibition for selling of these items along with the items which have specifically mentioned as permissible - The shop is being used for the purpose of carrying on the business of sale of cement, chips and ply etc. only and it cannot be said that it is used for any other purpose. (177) PLR
  7. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(iii) - Material impairment - Merely because one of the major construction raised is a long wall, State cannot contend that it would not materially impair the building - Fact that the plot has been bifurcated and approach from one portion to the other has been cut off would be sufficient to hold that there is material impairment - That the temporary construction has been removed and would take away the ground for eviction - Rejected - The time office, barrier room and guard room were stated to be serious violations of the bylaws of the Cantonment Board as the construction was beyond the building line - Both the rooms had been constructed without any proper sewerage disposal giving an ugly look to the building. (179) PLR
  8. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(iii) - Materially impairing the value and utility - Walls of the shop which were having thickness of 13 inches were scrapped substantially to extend the floor area of the shop - In such endeavour of increasing the area, the archs have also been removed - Though scrapping has been done upto the extent of about 9' on 13' tall walls but removal of the arch of the southern as well as western wall - Parchatti all over has been laid thus, causing additional burden on the concerned walls - Re-laying of the roof with increased height in place of old roof in both the shops has permanently changed the structural pattern clearly compromising with the safety of the building with removal of load bearing walls and scrapping of other  walls - Fixing of iron grill of the height of about 2-1/2 feet above the roof of the shop as also on the adjoining shop of tenant concomitantly raising the height of the wall as well for banners has resulted in putting of additional load on the roof resulting in material impairment of value and utility of the premises. (179) PLR
  9. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(iii) - Structural changes - When the shop continued to be in possession of the tenant all-through the period of tenancy and business was being carried out all along, the landlord could not have continued carrying structural changes for a month without tenant having parted with possession of the shop in question to the landlord which is not even the case of the tenant - Admittedly, possession earlier was of the father-in-law of the tenant and thereafter, she herself is in possession - Landlord never regained the possession in between the period of tenancy. (179) PLR
  10. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(v) - Ceased to occupy - Disposal of the earlier petition can have no bearing to present petition which is filed on an express statement that the property which was in the possession of a tenant has also been locked by his son and the property is unoccupied - The eviction is, therefore, sought for a cessation to occupy that had commenced - Subsequent petition was surely on different cause of action and any decision rendered in the earlier petition cannot have a bearing to the present dispensation. (180) PLR
  11. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(2)(v) - Ceased to occupy - Tenants evidence that he was having an oven in the premises for his bakery business and that he did not require any electricity ought to have been taken only as an evasive reply for if a tenant did not require electricity connection, he would have only sought for surrender of the electricity connection and he would not have merely allowed it to be disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges and by non-user - The electricity is not seen any longer as a luxury or comfort but it is even seen to be an absolute necessity for residential or non-residential purpose.       (180) PLR 


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.