1. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13(3) - Single eviction petition - Has been specifically mentioned that these two shops are integral part of one building - Petition against two tenants would be maintainable. (182) P.L.R. 
  2. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Bonafide requirement - Tenant application for Local Commissioner declined - Landlord registered body under the name and style of Shri Guru Singh Sabha - The number of people visiting to any Gurudwara or temple or any other religious place vary from time to time as well as day to day - During certain hours of the day the number of people visiting to any religious place may be more and during certain hours it may be less - It is not a case in which report of local commission could be of any help to adjudicate the matter in controversy. (179) P.L.R.
  3. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Plea of the tenant that the landlord has no personal bonafide necessity - This is not a question open for debate in revisional jurisdiction particularly when this aspect has already been dealt with at length by the Rent Controller and no infirmity or illegality or impropriety has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner - At this stage, it may, however, be mentioned that even otherwise, when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide necessity, there is initial presumption that the premises are so required by the landlord. (176) P.L.R.  
  4. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Pleading of the ingredients enshrined in Section 13(3)(a)(i) seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity are essential and mandatory - In the absence of the same, no order of ejectment can be validly  passed. (173) P.L.R.  6
  5. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(a)(i) - Provisions mandatory. (176) P.L.R.  
  6. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) - Bonafide requirement - Landlord is a retired Air Force personnel who is handicapped and his right arm had been amputated in an accident - He is seeking the eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity - Even if he is engaged in the business of property dealing, it would not deny him the right to get the premises vacated for his personal use and  requirement - That landlord is in occupation of another shop - Shop in question is not inhabited and is incomplete - Eviction order - Upheld. (178) P.L.R.   
  7. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(a)(ii) - In case, personal necessity of sons of the landlord has been claimed for eviction of the premises - It was thus mandatory for the landlord father especially when such sons are not parties in the litigation to plead and prove that even his sons were not occupying any other such building and had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after coming into force of the Act - Landlord pleading personal necessity of the sons has no where mentioned that neither the sons are occupying any other building nor had they vacated any such building without sufficient cause - Serious flaws in the case of the landlord in non-examination of son, for whose necessity he claims eviction. (176) P.L.R.  
  8. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(b) - Own use - Eviction was being sought by the landlady for the benefit of her grandson whom she had brought up from his childhood and for whose welfare she had definitely a concern - Need of the grandson of the landlord was surely relevant for appreciating the ground for ejectment.       (180) P.L.R.  
  9. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(3)(I)(a) - Bonafide necessity - Where the tenant has a house of his own which he has chosen for his residence but keeps the demised premises locked or unused to deprive the landlords of their rightful possession - Such could never have been the intention of the Act which was tailored to protect the tenants in view of the paucity of accommodation - A property which is not put to intended use by the tenant cannot be permitted to be retained by him by a measure of protection of the Act in preference to the desire of the landlord to enter his premises for a use beneficial to him. (175) P.L.R.   
  10.  

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.