• Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13(2)(a)(i) - Bonafide requirement - During the long period of litigation, the requirement of the society can always change - Initially, if the premises were required for a stadium or a play ground for the ancillary purposes of the school and now if the requirement is to set up a University in the premises in question - The bonafide necessity is not a desire - If over the period of time, the requirement has changed which is ancillary usage of the area in question to the primary purpose of education no fault can be found in the orders passed by the authorities below whereby, ejectment has been ordered. (177) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13(2)(i) - Learned Rent Controller simply observed that the rent was due but upto which date the respondents were liable to make tender of the rent has not been described - The amount of interest to quantify the amount due for being tendered has also not been stated - On the date fixed the tender of rent was made as per calculation of the tenant but he missed to make a tender for the period of one year - Since the assessment of the rent has not been according to the settled principle as discussed above, so there was no possibility of passing any eviction order because of the failure on the part of the learned Rent Controller to make proper provisional assessment. (179) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13(2)(i)- Arrears of rent - Case fixed for payment of assessed rent on the said date matter referred to Lok Adalat - Once the tenant was willing to deposit the rent and on account of the matter being referred to the Lok Adalat a day beyond the date fixed - If the rent could not be tendered it is not the fault of the tenant and the Rent Controller, was well justified in dismissing the application - The spirit and purpose of the rent legislation is to protect the tenant against arbitrary and unfair demand and once it was not a wilful default as such on the part of the tenant, the Rent Controller was well justified in not ordering the ejectment. (178) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(2)(ii)(a) - Sub-letting - Landlords predecessor had filed the case for eviction on the very same ground - Contending that he and his sons were members of joint Hindu family and there was no transfer of possession by him, however to any other legal entity - If the Court was rejecting the contention of the landlords - It was accepting the contention of the tenant - The present petition by the predecessors taking all the same plea of subletting was, therefore, clearly barred. (180) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(2)(v) - Ceased to occupy - Ground for eviction, namely, cessation to occupy that applied to the filing of the earlier petition that resulted in dismissal of default is not the very same period for which the landlord seeks for an eviction in the subsequent petition - The law requires the cessation to occupy in any place other than hilly area to last for 4 months without reasonable cause under the provisions of Section 13(2)(v). (180) P.L.R.  

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.