1. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3) - Positive finding has been recorded by both the Courts below making a strong observation against the landlord that he intentionally concealed the fact of his ownership of two shops in the other area within the Municipal Corporation and were also in his possession - Petition dismissed - This is not a formal defect in the eviction petition which could be allowed to be rectified, permitting the landlord to withdraw the eviction petition, who has lost before both the Courts below after a finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence, to file it again on the same cause of action by making reference to the provisions of the Act as well as the fact which he had earlier concealed from the court - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 23, Rule 3. (177) PLR
  2. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3) - Positive finding has been recorded by both the Courts below making a strong observation against the landlord that he intentionally concealed the fact of his ownership of two shops in the other area within the Municipal Corporation and were also in his possession - Petition dismissed - This is not a formal defect in the eviction petition which could be allowed to be rectified, permitting the landlord to withdraw the eviction petition, who has lost before both the Courts below after a finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence, to file it again on the same cause of action by making reference to the provisions of the Act as well as the fact which he had earlier concealed from the court - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 23, Rule 3. Joginder Singh  v. Sunil Kapoor . (177) PLR
  3. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Application by landlord for amendment of pleadings - Neither the Civil Procedure Code ipso facto with all the principles of law is automatically applicable nor provisions of CPC render the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Act to be meaningless when cause of administration of justice suffers - In a case as the present one, as has already been noticed, such omission in pleadings once comes to the notice of the Rent Controller, is required to be incorporated even by calling upon the petitioner to do so - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 6, Rule 17. (176) PLR
  4. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Bonafide requirement - Petitioner is owner of three adjacent shops, out of which one is lying vacant, which is being used by his son for the purpose of parking his car as a garage and that too as and when he comes on vacation to reside with the petitioner - This in itself shows that there is an adjacent shop available within the same locality with the petitioner-landlord, where the petitioner can run his intended business - It has come on record that on earlier 6/7 occasions the shops being got vacated by him and then rented out to different tenants by the landlord in the last 6/7 years - Petition dismissed - Order upheld.(181) PLR
  5. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Effect of not pleading the ingredients - It is essential and mandatory for the landlord to plead the other ingredients embodied in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act - In other words, the pleadings in terms of Clauses (b) and (c) are required to be incorporated in the petition - In the absence of the same, no order of ejectment can be validly passed - Had not mentioned the sufficient cause for vacating the said premises as there is no mention of the same either in the petition or in the replication - Thus, the conditions under Sub clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) had not been pleaded in accordance with the factual  background - Order passed by the authorities below dismissing the eviction petition could not be  faulted.  (173) PLR
  6. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Pleadings of bona fide need - Once the respondent-landlord was allowed to amend his pleadings, the same will relate back to the original filing of the petition - Not only this, after amendment of the pleadings, the petitioner was at liberty to seek leading of additional evidence which admittedly he did not - Moreover, the petitioner did not refute the amended pleadings filed by the respondent-landlord - Eviction - Upheld. (174) PLR
  7. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Amendment of written statement - Unless pleadings of the petitioner-tenants are wholesome and elaborate, evidence would not be permissible for the petitioner-tenants to be brought far and beyond the scope of their plea in the written statement - Though amendment sought for is extension of the plea that personal necessity of the landlady is not genuine but the scope and extension of such plea by way of amendment is quite large as it takes into its fold many related aspects which would require independent handling and distinct adjudication after evidence is produced by the petitioner-tenants with liberty of rebuttal evidence to be granted to the landlords - To deny such amendment to the petitioner-tenant would in fact amount to miscarriage of justice. (177) PLR
  8. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Landlord was working in United States of America and has retired from her job - She has categorically stated that she wanted to set up a departmental store for cosmetics and general goods on the ground floor of the building after demolishing all the four  shops - Need and necessity as has been projected by the respondent-landlord cannot be said to be not bonafide or not justified. (182) PLR
  9. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Landlord-bank bonafide requires the premises for carrying on its business completingly by re-structuring its entrance and construction of the main banking hall by demolishing the old existing building including the shops located in the front - Merely because no site plan of the proposed construction has been produced by the landlord-bank is no ground to doubt genuineness of the need of the landlord when there is overwhelming unscathed evidence of the landlord. (177) PLR
  10. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Reason given for vacation of the shop in the year 1992 has been given i.e. construction of the first floor over the demised showroom owned by the landlord of which back portion is being occupied by him - Explanation, thus, given by him is just and reasonable for vacating the shop in the year 1992 and, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.1-landlord had not approached the Court with clean hands.  (180) PLR
  11. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a)- Bona fide requirement - Regarding personal necessity of the landlord, it is not required for him to disclose the type/nature of business he is going to start in the demised premises after getting it vacated from the tenant - Then it is also not required from him to show his own experience with regard to the business which he is going to start in the demised premises - The only  duty of the Court is to see as to whether the alleged personal necessity of the landlord qua the demised premises for his own use and occupation is the bona fide one or otherwise.  (179) PLR
  12. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Existence  of another building or the fact that he has not vacated the premises without justifiable cause will be illustrations of the want of bona fides - The bona fides or lack of it can also be seen from the past conduct of how the landlord has attempted dubious ways of securing his ejectment and failed - That the wife is running the same business can be no argument that the husband cannot run his own business - In the modern living, both spouses making an earning to allow for a large corpus of funds in their hands is the norm - It is indeed an indicator of an economic progress. (180) PLR
  13. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(ii) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 9, Rule 9 - If the petition filed containing relief for change of user had been dismissed for default then without an application for its restoration, a subsequent petition filed on the same ground will be barred under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. (180) PLR
  14. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(ii) - Ought to be, therefore, a pleading or proof for the fact that the landlord was not in occupation of any other building - In this case, the landlord had yet another property available for her for occupation that had fallen vacant and it was not even disclosed that she had obtained eviction of the tenant in the year 1992-93 itself - If on the day when the petition was filed, the property was vacant which the landlord had occupied but had filed the petition without such disclosure, it will be no argument to place before the Court that yet another property that had fallen vacant had been occupied by her spouse subsequently and therefore, at the time of giving evidence no such property was available.      (180) PLR
  15. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(iii) - Unfit and unsafe for human habitation - As per report of the building expert the flooring of the building was not in a workable condition - Balas supporting the roof had started decaying - The walls had developed cracks which could result in falling of the roof - The expert gave the opinion that the building in question had been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation - Eviction - Upheld. (175) PLR
  16. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(iii) - Unfit and unsafe for human habitation - Earlier petition was dismissed in default, the second petition seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the premises in question was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, could not be said to be not maintainable as with the passage of time, the building would further become unsafe and unfit for human habitation - Tenant himself had moved an application that the demised shop be got repaired - Admitted in his cross-examination that one of the wooden batten and bricks of ceiling had fallen - Eviction order - Upheld. (179) PLR
  17. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(a)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Landlord unfortunately met with an accident because of which he got his hip joint replaced on account of injuries which has resulted in his handicap and he is unable to go to the first floor of the shop to supervise the work of washing and ironing of the clothes - Eviction upheld.  (180) PLR
  18. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13(3)(a)(iv) - Unfit and unsafe for human habitation - Witnesses of the tenant never lived inside the premises - In addition, they had no occasion or experience to visit the premises even occasionally then how could they have been in a position to depose about the condition of the building qua human habitation? - Thus, their statements being too sweeping and general and apparently made to support and sustain their fellow tenant in the vicinity, do not have any probative value for adjudication of the matter in controversy - Similarly, merely because no notice has come from Municipal Council, Tapa for demolition of the building it being allegedly unfit and unsafe for human habitation, is not a circumstance to hold that the building is fit and safe for human habitation - Attorney is the son of the present landlord - He is knowing each and everything about the building - Eviction order upheld. (176) PLR 

 

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*


Supreme Court e@journal
PUNJAB LAW REPORTER


Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

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