Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
58 judgments · newest first · showing 1–58
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 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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, …
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 …
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 …
The landlord, Om Prakash, let a shop to the tenant Ashok Kumar in 1982 and later sought eviction on the ground of a bona‑fide requirement for his son. The Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the Punjab‑Haryana High Court ordered eviction of the tenant from the non‑residential premises under …
The landlord (Nano Kishore) leased a portion of his residential house in Chandigarh to the tenant (Yashpal Singh) for residential use in April 1994, but the tenant began using the premises for commercial activities in December 1994 without the landlord's consent or permission from the Rent …
Shashi Jain, the landlady, filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming she needed the premises for her own and her aged mother's personal use and that the tenant, Tarsem Lal, had sub‑let part of the premises to Rakesh Kumar without her …
The appellants, a father and his son who became the landlord of a shop after a family partition, filed an eviction petition against the respondents for sub‑letting, non‑payment of rent and personal requirement. The Rent Controller allowed eviction only on the sub‑letting ground; the Appellate …
The appellant, Satyawati Sharma, purchased a house in Delhi and sought eviction of tenants who were using the premises for a watch shop and a clinic, invoking the landlord's bona‑fide need under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Act’s Section 14(1)(e) permits eviction only when the premises are …
The appellants, tenants in Chandigarh, challenged a 7 November 2002 notification issued by the Administrator under Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which exempted buildings and rented land with monthly rent exceeding Rs.1500 from the Act's provisions. The High Court had …
The Supreme Court examined an eviction dispute under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, where a landlord who had migrated to the United Kingdom claimed NRI status and sought possession of a shop under Section 13‑B. The tenant argued that the landlord was not a genuine NRI, had not …
The appellant, Rakesh Vij, challenged an eviction order against his father’s tenancy in a shop‑cum‑flat in Chandigarh, arguing that the landlord could not evict a tenant from a non‑residential building under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended in 1974. The Court examined the …
The petitioner, British Motor Car Co., leased land and a building in Jalandhar in 1967 under a lease that prohibited any additions or alterations. The tenant later erected two permanent sheds in the courtyard without the landlord's consent, obstructing ventilation and reducing the usable area. The …
The landlord, a retired Indian Revenue Service officer, constructed a house in Moga and later let part of it to the tenant. After a decade he sought eviction on the ground of needing the premises for his own occupation because of age, health and lack of alternative residence. The Rent Controller and …
The landlord let a shop with a verandah to the tenant, who later enclosed the verandah and installed a rolling shutter without the landlord's consent. The landlord sought eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging that the alteration materially …
The landlord, Joginder Pal, filed an eviction petition under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming the premises were needed for the office of his chartered‑accountant son. The tenant, Naval Kishore Behal, occupied the premises for non‑residential purposes …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging the tenants defaulted on rent of Rs 2000 per month as stipulated in the lease. The tenants contended that the rent was actually Rs 1800 per month, a rate they had been directed to deposit during …
The owners of a commercial complex leased the premises to Goyal under a registered deed that expressly prohibited sub‑letting without the landlord’s written consent. Goyal subsequently allowed two occupants to occupy parts of the premises. The owners filed an eviction petition under Section …
The appellant, K.D. Dewan, had occupied a residential premises in Chandigarh since 1965, initially paying rent to the father of the respondent and thereafter to the respondent, Harbhajan S. Parihar. The respondent filed an eviction application under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent …
Atul Castings Ltd., the tenant, occupied a building leased for residential purposes and kept an office table and equipment in one room to dispose of office files, which the family also used for study. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging non‑payment of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and that the shop was dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. The trial court ordered eviction, but the appellate court set aside …
The respondent-landlady filed an eviction suit in a civil court against the appellant-tenant for arrears of rent. The dispute centered on whether the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act) applied to the building, which was claimed to be exempt under notifications dated 31 January …
The plaintiff, Ajit Chopra (through his legal representative), purchased a property in 1957 subject to pending rent‑control litigation between the vendor and the tenant, Sadhu Ram. The tenant denied any landlord‑tenant relationship and claimed title by adverse possession, leading to a fresh eviction …
The landlady, a widow of a retired government servant, sought eviction of four tenants under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction of two tenants, but the High Court held that only one tenant could …
The landlord filed a civil suit under the general law to evict the tenant from a shop that was constructed in December 1968. The landlord relied on a 1971 Government Notification exempting buildings constructed in 1968‑1970 from the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for five years, arguing that …
In a rent‑control dispute, the Supreme Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and granted him time until 31 March 1995 to vacate the suit premises, subject to filing an undertaking. The respondent neither filed the undertaking nor vacated the premises, and filed false affidavits claiming he had …
The appellant, a landlord of a non‑residential shop, sought to evict his tenant on the ground of bona‑fide personal use, a right that had been removed by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956. He challenged the amendment as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing …
The landlady, Smt. Swaran Lata, sought eviction of her tenant Dev Kumar under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 alleging sub‑letting of the premises to three respondents. The Rent Controller, relying on a local commissioner’s report, concluded sub‑letting and ordered eviction. The …
The appellant‑tenant Vipin Kumar was evicted under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for constructing a wall and door in the verandah of his demised shop without the landlord’s consent, which was held to have stopped the flow of light and air and thus materially …
The landlord, a retired university comptroller, claimed status as a "specified landlord" under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant. The High Court accepted this claim and granted the landlord one month to take possession, subject to the tenant …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging the premises were unsafe and required reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the District Court reversed, finding that the tenant had replaced the …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging that the tenant had ceased to occupy a shop for a continuous period of more than four months between 1969 and 1971. The lower courts upheld the eviction, holding that the tenant's …
Milkhi Ram, the landlord, filed an eviction suit under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 alleging arrears of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and alterations. The tenants, Pushpa Devi and her son, together with Saligram (who claimed to be a sub‑tenant), tendered the …
The appellant, a retired public officer, sought eviction of a tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, invoking Section 13A which allows a "specified landlord" to recover possession within a year of retirement. The appellant became landlord only after his father's death, i.e., …
The appellant rented premises in Jalandhar to operate a cycle and rickshaw repair shop, but also sold televisions there temporarily for about seven months. The landlord sought eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, alleging a change of user. The Rent …
The petitioners, tenants of newly constructed buildings in Chandigarh, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and a 1974 notification that exempted such buildings from Section 13 for five years. They argued that the exemption was …
Om Pal, a tenant, leased a shop for a dry‑cleaning business and installed a wooden parchhati (balcony) on the wall. The landlord sought eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging that the construction materially impaired the building's value or …
The landlords (Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr.) leased commercial premises to S. Chokesiri & Co., who later allowed two sub‑tenants – a tailor and an ice‑cream vendor – to operate within the premises. The landlords sought eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, …
The appellant, a tenant, occupied four ground‑floor rooms under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The roof of one room collapsed and the tenant repaired it after obtaining permission under Section 12 of the Act. The landlord sought eviction, first on bona‑fide occupation grounds and …
The appellant, Mohan Lal, leased a shop from the respondent, Jai Bhagwan, under a rent note that stipulated the premises be used for the "business of English Liquor Vend". After the liquor licence was not renewed in 1979, the tenant switched to selling general merchandise. The landlord filed an …
Sant Lal Bharti, claiming ownership of premises in Punjab, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and alleged unreasonableness. The High Court dismissed the …
The landlady (respondent No.1) leased a house in Chandigarh to Haryana Milk Food Corporation (respondent No.2) for the residence of its General Manager, R.P. Malhotra, who signed the lease on behalf of the corporation. After Malhotra left the corporation, the landlady stopped accepting rent and …
The landlord leased a shop‑cum‑flat to a tenant in 1963 and two adjoining flats in 1967. The tenant sub‑let those two flats to a sub‑tenant before the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 came into force in Chandigarh on 4‑Nov‑1972. After a compromise, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of …
Sham Lal, a statutory tenant, was sued for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for alleged non‑payment of rent. The summons returnable date was 26‑06‑1969, on which the tenant appeared and sought an adjournment; the written statement and tender of arrears …
The petitioners challenged three notifications issued by the Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh under Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as extended to Chandigarh), arguing that the section delegated excessive legislative power, violated Article 14, was ultra‑violet of the …
Mahabir Prasad occupied a shop‑cum‑flat in Chandigarh under a one‑month rent note dated 24‑04‑1974. The landlady, Surinder Kaur, claimed the tenant had illegally sub‑let portions of the premises after the tenancy expired and sought eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent …
Mangat Rai and another, tenants, deposited all arrears of rent, future rent, interest and costs in the court of a Senior Sub‑Judge under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. The landlord sued for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, …
The landlord sought eviction of a shop in Ambala Cantonment on the ground that the tenant, Gurcharan Singh, had sub-let the premises without his written consent, invoking Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller and appellate authority held that …
Mani Subrat Jain, an advocate, was a tenant of a building owned by Raja Ram Vohra. The landlord sued for possession and the parties entered a compromise whereby Jain agreed to vacate by a specified date, and a decree for possession was passed on 9‑Oct‑1972. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction …
The appellant, a tenant of a shop owned by Sher Singh, was served with an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for alleged arrears of rent. The tenant deposited the full arrears, interest and costs with the Rent Controller on 4 May 1967, a week …
