1. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13-A - The distinction of residential and non-residential buildings brought for classification of buildings has been held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and now the provision equally applies to residential as also to non-residential buildings.  (179) P.L.R.  
  2. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) S. 13-A(4) - Leave to defend - Were required to file an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction - In the application/affidavit reproduced above, the revision petitioners have not come up with any legal or factual plea to make out a ground to allow him to leave to defend - The only plea raised by the revision petitioners was that the petition under Section 13-A of the Act was not maintainable.  (179) P.L.R.  
  3. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13-A(5) - Tenant had filed an application under Section 13(A)(1A) - That landlord suppressed the material as he owned another house which is in his occupation - Under the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent, the allottee authorized the respondent to deposit the balance installments of the house, obtain receipts, sale letter, further authorizing him to sell/mortgage/gift or transfer the house in any manner and to pursue the proceedings before the authorities - Respondent was further authorized to raise construction of the house, to rent it out and get back the possession and obtain water and electricity connections from the concerned department - Being entered under the column of ownership in the Municipal record continuously for about two years and this at least would show his occupation of the said house whereas the respondent out and out denied that such an entry is made in his name - Eviction order - Set aside. (177) P.L.R.  
  4. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13-A(5) - Tenant had filed an application under Section 13(A)(1A) - That landlord suppressed the material as he owned another house which is in his occupation - Under the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent, the allottee authorized the respondent to deposit the balance installments of the house, obtain receipts, sale letter, further authorizing him to sell/mortgage/gift or transfer the house in any manner and to pursue the proceedings before the authorities - Respondent was further authorized to raise construction of the house, to rent it out and get back the possession and obtain water and electricity connections from the concerned department - Being entered under the column of ownership in the Municipal record continuously for about two years and this at least would show his occupation of the said house whereas the respondent out and out denied that such an entry is made in his name - Eviction order - Set aside. Anil Kumar Sood  v. Subhash Chander Kapila . (177) P.L.R.  
  5. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(A) - A co-owner is entitled to seek eviction of a building owned by him with other co-owners who may not be enjoying status of `specified landlord' having right of invoking summary provisions of Section 13-A of the Haryana Act - Only exception to this concept is that none of the remaining co-owners should have any objection to the initiative undertaken by the co-owner. (176) P.L.R.  
  6. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(A) - Specified landlord - Merely because the landlord has obtained ejectment orders in respect of other two shops, right of the landlord for summary eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute is not lost. (176) P.L.R.  
  7. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) S. 13(A)(4) - Leave to defend - Summons issued in ordinary way - But before expiry of the time statutorily stipulated, the tenant had appeared before the Rent Controller and had made an application to contest the petition for eviction within the stipulated time; it was duly entertained and was adjudicated - Since there was neither any default nor delay in appearance nor even in making application to obtain leave of the Rent Controller to contest the eviction petition, the argument that proper procedure for summoning of a tenant as envisaged has not been followed is of no consequence.  (176) P.L.R.  

 

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.