Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

12 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS.versusVEERAN NARANG

2011 INSC 82730 November 2011Dismissed

The respondent filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 193, 420 and 120‑B alleging that the appellants made false statements before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller, a statutory quasi‑judicial body, had earlier disposed of a related application, holding the complaint pending. A Judicial Magistrate later i

DHIANKAURversusEAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949

2014 INSC 102129 October 2014Disposed off

The landlady Dhiankaur filed eviction proceedings against tenant Prem Pal Sran under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging arrears of rent from December 1994. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both held that the agreed rent was Rs.1,500 per month and that the tenant was in arrears for

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusDILBAHAR SINGH

2014 INSC 99727 August 2014Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High Court could re‑apprecia

OM PRAKASHversusASHWANI KUMAR BASSI

2010 INSC 55027 August 2010Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and served the tenant on 19 May 2005, requiring the tenant to apply for leave to contest within 15 days. The tenant filed the application one day late, on 4 June 2005, and then sought condonation of the delay

PADAM NABH & SONSversusYASH PAL

2021 INSC 74117 November 2021Dismissed

The appellant, a non‑resident Indian (NRI), purchased a building in Punjab that was already occupied by a tenant who had been inducted by the previous owner. After returning to India, the appellant sought eviction of the tenant under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The central issue wa

SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS.versusSURINDER SINGH

2020 INSC 43117 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging arrears of rent and house tax. The Rent Controller held that the rent note was not signed by both parties, was not a lease requiring compulsory registration, and ordered eviction. The Appellate Cour

DR RS GREWAL & ORS.versusCHANDER PARKASH SONI & ANR.

2019 INSC 54316 April 2019Dismissed

The case concerned a suit for possession of a shop in Ludhiana filed by the grandson and great‑grandson of Dr. Hira Singh, who claimed title after the death of the testator’s widowed daughter, Shiv Dev Kaur, who held a life interest under a 1944 will. The daughter had created a tenancy with the defendant and was entitl

RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 123914 November 2019Dismissed

The petitioners, tenants in Chandigarh and Punjab, challenged Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which gives Non‑Resident Indian (NRI) landlords a preferential right to evict tenants, and the extension of this provision to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by a 2009 notification under Sec

HARJIT SINGH UPPALversusANUP BANSAL

2011 INSC 40113 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to evict the tenant for alleged rent arrears, and the Rent Controller fixed a provisional rent and ordered payment. The tenant applied to recall that order, alleging the controller had ignored his payment records, but the controller re

DALIP KAUR BRARversusM/S.GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR.

2017 INSC 33111 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Dalip Kaur Brar, leased a residential premises to the respondents for three years at a rent of Rs.25,000 per month, increasing to Rs.28,000 after the first year. The tenants fell into arrears from November 2005, but the Rent Controller made a provisional assessment directing them to deposit only Rs.19,000

SWAMI NATHversusNIRMAL SINGH

2010 INSC 5727 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, tenants, challenged eviction orders passed by Rent Controllers under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by their landlord‑respondents who were non‑resident Indians. The tenants argued that the landlord already possessed another shop in the same building, lacked a bo

JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR.versusM/S INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 5843 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, claiming personal necessity for premises they alleged they owned and had leased to the respondents. During the trial the respondents sought to amend their written statement to deny the appellants' ownership, assert

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search