1. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Amendment of written statement - Party who has admitted a certain fact cannot be allowed to take a complete `U' turn and abandon his earlier stand and take a complete new stand especially when the landlord led his evidence keeping in view the admissions made by the petitioner tenant. (174) PLR
  2. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Appeal lies before the Appellate authority against an order of fixing provisional rent. (178) PLR
  3. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Assessment of provisional rent - In the prior litigation inter se the parties, the petitioner has himself taken a plea that he was a tenant to avoid the claim in the civil suit - In such circumstances, it would not be justified for him to back track from his own stand and now take a plea that the husband of the respondent-landlady has sold portion of the  shop - Status of the petitioner would, in no manner, be changed and he would continue to be a tenant in the premises and thus, liable to deposit the  rent. (177) PLR
  4. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Bonafide requirement - Cause of action is to be seen on the date of application and merely because the landlord has died during the pendency of litigation would not be a ground to set aside the relief which the landlord had earned after leading  evidence. (178) PLR
  5. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Bonafide requirement - Eviction from booth - It is not sine qua non for the landlord to specify the nature of business for which the premises are bonafide required by him - There being time lag between the filing of the petition and the time when actual business would be started, the nature of business could be decided after the demised premises are vacated by the tenant - Non-specifying the nature of business would not dis-entitle the landlord to seek eviction on the ground of personal necessity.  (174) PLR
  6. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Bonafide requirement - Neither the landlady nor her son have appeared in the witness box - Husband of the landlady has appeared in the witness box as her attorney and the statement of the attorney cannot be said to be sufficient to establish the fact that the landlady required the premises in question for her personal use and occupation - Landlady is aged 58 years - Resident of the place where the case is being tried - Rather the husband of the landlady had deposed in his cross-examination that he was ready to withdraw the case in case the tenant removed the air conditioner from the ventilator and affix the same at a lower level - Courts erred in holding that the tenant was liable to be ejected. (175) PLR
  7. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Bonafide requirement - Tendering the supplementary affidavit when the affidavit in examination-in-chief has already been tendered - After the filing of the affidavit in examination-in-chief, it has come to his knowledge that the son of the petitioner-landlord is running a shop - Rent Controller has proceeded to accept the supplementary affidavit as has been filed by the respondent-tenant as it goes to the root of the dispute - It is not in dispute that the cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent has not yet started - Apart from the tendering of the affidavit in examination-in-chief of the respondent-tenant, another witness has tendered affidavit in support of his examination-in-chief but no cross-examination has started - Accordingly, the Court has rightly proceeded to permit the tender of supplementary affidavit as it is in the interest of justice - Merely because the Appellate Authority has mentioned that Order 41 Rule 33 CPC authorizes the Appellate Court to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed, would not render the findings of the Appellate Authority either perverse or arbitrary - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 41 Rule 33. (182) PLR
  8. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Ceased to occupy - If the tenant were to contend that after the allotment of government accommodation, he actually shifted to the government accommodation and he had only allowed the other members of the family to remain in the demised premise, it would have no bearing at all - The cessation to occupy by the son himself would surely be a ground by person to say that the property had been ceased to be occupied. (180) PLR
  9. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Change of user - Premises in question had been taken on rent by the petitioner for running a cycle repair shop - Petitioner had admitted that now his wife had started preparing tea in the demised premises - Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had changed the user of the shop. (175) PLR
  10. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 41 Rule 27 - Appellate authority had failed to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, while deciding the appeal, this petition is liable to be allowed and a direction is liable to be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (174) PLR
  11. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) Order 2(12), 41(5) - Eviction order passed - Mesne profits - Appellant Authority while dealing with the application for payment of mesne profits by the landlord, allowed the parties to lead their respective evidence in which the landlord lead evidence - Since no evidence was led by the petitioners-tenants, therefore, they cannot have a grievance and ask for determination of mesne profits by the Rent Controller. (178) PLR
  12. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Conditional ejectment order was passed - Tenant was held to be in arrears of rent and arrears was to be paid within two months from the said date - Order not complied with - Warrants of possession were also issued in the execution petition - Executing Court allowed application for deposit of amount which was deposited - Bonafide of the tenant missing from day one - In order to save ejectment, he was required to show that he was willing to pay the amount which was outstanding - Had not paid the rent during the ejectment proceedings - In such circumstances, the principle of justice and equity do not tilt in favour of the tenant. (178) PLR
  13. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Conditional order was passed and compliance was to be made within two months - Even in case the tenant was ill or suffering from alleged ailment, the rent was still not deposited till 5.9.2014 whereas the last date to deposit the same was 2.4.2012 and extension application was filed on 19.4.2012 - Therefore, it is apparent that the bonafide of the tenant was missing from day one - In order to save ejectment, he was required to show that he was willing to pay the amount which was outstanding. (178) PLR
  14. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Courts below have considered the non-examination of wife of landlord/petitioners who were most competitive to speak about the payment by the tenant when the landlord demanding the alleged arrears and for considering the circumstances whether the tenant could have been allowed to be in default of long period of time especially when the landlord had admitted that the wife used to look after his transaction during his absence from India. (174) PLR
  15. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Ejectment - Complete description of the property has been given in the plaint itself and there was no confusion with regard to the description of the property with the parties to the litigation - As far as the exact measurement of the property is concerned, earlier incorrect measurement was given on the basis of report prepared by Draftsman - Petitioner came to know of that fact and especially having been pointed out by the respondent the exactment - Application filed for correction dismissed - Order set aside - The requirement of law is that where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7, Rule 3. (182) PLR
  16. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Ejectment - Contractual lease - Unregistered lease deed - In view of special legislation governing the relationship of landlord and tenant and grounds of ejectment, an eviction petition of the tenant can be filed even before the expiry of the lease period if there is a ground available under the Act - The provisions of the Act would certainly have an over-riding effect over all other statutes whenever there is a dispute between the landlord and tenant regarding ejectment.  (179) PLR
  17. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Eviction - Merely because separate para with regard to cause of action has not been set out, but necessary averments in respect of cause of action accruing to the landlord have been set out - The petition does not become bad, making it liable to be dismissed - Procedure prescribed for eviction of a tenant in terms of the Act is in the nature of an inquiry and strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply - The eviction application in terms of the provisions of the Act contains all necessary particulars and is not found wanting at all - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7 Rule 1.  (179) PLR
  18. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Eviction - Plea of the tenant that such due course could have been only under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, is not tenable because remedy under the Rent Act as has rightly been held by both the authorities below, is not excluded even under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Moreover, when the tenant himself had sought declaration of his status as a tenant, which relief was granted to the tenant by the civil court, there is no merit in his plea that provisions of the Rent Act do not apply - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971). (177) PLR
  19. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Eviction - Sufficient to hold that he is owner/landlord of the shop in dispute on the basis of the family settlement - Moreover for filing a petition for ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity, it is not required that the alleged landlords are to be owners of the said premises - A landlord can maintain such like petition even without being owner of the demised  premises.  (179) PLR
  20. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Eviction ordered - Mesne profits - Supreme Court set aside the rate of mesne profits with the observation that such a determination requires certain inquiry and thus relegated the parties to appear before the Rent Controller,Chandigarh for determination of the same and payment accordingly - It is also not in dispute that both parties appeared before the Executing Court-cum-Rent Controller where the execution proceedings were already pending - Merely because the nomenclature would be Rent Controller or the Executing Court would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court where the parties are required to lead their respective evidence in support of determination of rate of mesne profits to be paid - It is also not disputed that the said rate also forms part of the eviction decree modified by this  Court. (173) PLR 5
  21. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Evidence - Letter ought to have been assigned an exhibit number itself since the document was confronted to the petitioner and when he denied it, the tenant himself spoke about the document as having been received through a bearer of the petitioner's wife - At least it showed that the relationship had been reasonably cordial and the wife was demanding a particular sum of money - The date is also not there but with reference to detail which the document is silent about, Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act makes possible evidence to be given to supplement what the document does not give - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) S. 92. (174) PLR
  22. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Extension of time for deposit - Eviction was stayed subject to clearance of arrears of rent within a period of one month - Even later on the petitioner had been getting the demand drafts prepared and keeping the same with him cannot be said to be a good ground to condone the default and extend the period - The bona fides of the petitioner are missing, as it cannot be claimed that the petitioner was not in knowledge of the order passed by the court, where it directed for deposit of the amount in court and not for payment to the landlord - Even the claim that when the rent was offered to the landlord or her counsel, they had refused to accept the same is of no consequence. (175) PLR
  23. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Impairing the value and utility - Mere installation of the air conditioner in the ventilator does not mean that the value and utility of the shop had been impaired or that it was a case of nuisance - Further, the construction of toilet cannot be also said to have impaired the value and utility of the shop in question. (175) PLR
  24. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Landlord claims to be sole owner of the shop in view of sale-deed executed in his favour by his father - Though litigation regarding same is still pending yet his status as co-owner is undisputed - Admittedly application filed by co-owner for impleadment was rejected by the Rent Controller but petitioner never chose to challenge the order - However, dispute being between legal heirs - Tenant cannot take benefit of the same. (174) PLR
  25. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Landlord sold the premises - In the earlier proceedings initiated in the year 1997 and culminating in Rent Appeal No.16 of 2004 decided on 18.8.2004 and which has attained finality, it was clearly held that the petitioners would be on notice regarding the acquisition of ownership by the respondent and would, thus, be entitled to pay the rent at least w.e.f. July 1997 i.e. the date of acquiring knowledge of the ownership - Petitioner who had knowledge of the acquisition of ownership in the year 1997 itself frustrated the attempts of the respondent-landlord since then and did not even care to pay the rent thereby destroying the bedrock of the relationship between a landlord and tenant and, thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners have lost all legitimate rights to stay in the premises.  (176) PLR
  26. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Merely because resolution of the landlord-bank authorizes filing of the petitions for eviction of the tenants designating such officer by post, is no ground to hold such resolution of the Bank to be vague - Competent authority for bringing eviction petitions having been identified as District Manager does not offend the institution of the eviction petitions by the District Manager, who had filed these petitions and had then been prosecuting the same. (177) PLR
  27. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Mesne profits - Demised booth taken on rent since 1995 @ Rs.6,500/- per month - Eviction ordered in 12.09.2012 - Mesne profits assured at Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of eviction. (173) PLR
  28. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Mesne Profits - SCO Sector 34-C Chandigarh - Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, the mesne profits of the ground floor can be assessed to be Rs.90,000/-, of first floor Rs.60,000/- and second floor to be Rs.50,000/- per month - The total mesne profits works out to Rs.2 lacs per month, which is just.  (179) PLR
  29. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Mesne Profits during the pendency of the appeal - Rental of the booth - Cannot be taken as precedent for fixing rental of SCO.  (179) PLR
  30. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Mesne Profits during the pendency of the appeal - Shop - Even by adding 10% per annum increase of the base rent of Rs. 1050/- per month as existing 14 years ago, fixation of the amount of Rs. 8000/- towards mesne profits would be quite justified. (178) PLR
  31. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Petitioner could not seek new grounds for the eviction of the tenants by way of amendment - Initially, petitioner had sought ejectment of the tenants on the ground that he required the premises in question for his own use whereas now by way of amendment, petitioner also wants to claim that the premises in question was required by his sons and the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenants had impaired the utility and value of the shop in question - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 6 Rule 17. (179) PLR
  32. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties proved - Onus was upon the petitioner-tenant to establish that rent had been paid - The petitioner has failed to place on record any evidence that he had paid rent upto when ejectment application was filed by the respondent landlady - There was no occasion of payment of rent to a third person - Eviction order - Upheld. (173) PLR
  33. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Right to get rented premises vacated is a statutory right provided to a landlord under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 - The pendency of the civil suit filed by revision petitioner or by respondent-landlord in no manner affect the outcome of the petition under Section 13 of the Act.      (177) PLR
  34. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - SCO Sector 17, Chandigarh - Mesne Profits - Is fixed at Rs.2.50 lacs per month w.e.f. August 15, 2010 till October 26, 2013 when the ejectment order was passed - With effect from October 26, 2013 till vacation of the premises, the mesne profits per month is assessed as Rs.3 lacs p.m.  (179) PLR
  35. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Setting aside exparte order - Application - No limitation is prescribed in Article 123 of the Limitation Act - Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949.(181) PLR
  36. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Shop - Mesne profits - Appellate Authority shall reassess the mesne profits on the basis of a registered lease deed of the same area or valuation report - Location, type of construction, accessibility with the main road and parking facilities etc. have to be taken into consideration. (178) PLR
  37. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Tenancy had started between the landlord and the petitioner as a co-tenant with K.B. - If later co-tenants entered into a partnership and conducted their business in new name which partnership was further changed bringing yet another partnership deed, the landlord does not become a party to such nuance of the tenants to hoodwink the landlord denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with a view to deny payment of rent.     (177) PLR
  38. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Tenant had filed a suit against the landlord/trust so that he was not forcibly evicted from the premises - To contain such move of Tenant agent was authorised to defend the case filed, to file a case against the tenant to claim arrears of rent - Instead had filed a petition for eviction of the tenant not only for payment of arrears of  rent but had also sought its ejectment on the ground of making of additions and alterations in the rented premises resulting in alleged impairment of material value and utility of the premises as also on the ground of personal necessity - On independently viewing the entire spection - Orders of eviction - Set aside. (176) PLR
  39. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Whether a tenant inducted by one of the co-owners could be defeated in his statutory right of protection under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by an allotment in partition to other co-sharers of the property so long as the lease itself was not collusive or in excess of the authority of the co-owner that created the lease ? - A circumstance that the partition between the landlord and other members of the family did not bring the allotment of the leased property to the landlord cannot take away the right of the person who is lawfully inducted by one of the co-owners.  (174) PLR
  40. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 -That respondent-landlord is not entitled to recover the rent beyond a period of three years is liable to be rejected outrightly - It is well settled that ejectment petition is not a recovery suit for which limitation period of three years is prescribed, but a petition for the ejectment of the tenant on certain grounds including the ground that tenant is in arrears of rent - The Rent Act grants liberty to the tenant to tender the arrears of rent and thereby escape ejectment on said ground and he is bound to pay or tender the arrears of rent found due against him irrespective of the fact that rent is due for a period of more than three years. (173) PLR 7
  41. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) Section 13 - Bonafide requirement - First petition was dismissed - Present petition was filed after a period of more than 11 years - In the meantime, the various factors including retirement of the landlord from Government service had taken place and in such circumstances he had filed an application for the ejectment on the ground of personal necessity of the shop in question - On account of change in circumstances the second petition is maintainable even if the first petition had been dismissed. (178) 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.