PUBLICATIONS

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 - Punjab Laws Act, Section 6. Despite the fact that the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the State of Punjab, it is necessary under the general law of the land to terminate a monthly tenancy by at least fifteen days notice of ejectment. Requirement of the Section relating to the necessity of notice terminating strictly with the end of the month of a tenancy not being part of general law as the said rule is too technical to be called in aid as a mere principle of equity.

B. B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 106.

C. C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106. Whether objection relating to non issue of notice or as to validity of such notice can be waived by tenant (Yes). Held, that objection to the non-service of the requisite notice as well as to its invalidity on account of insufficiency of the period of notice, can in law be waived by a tenant.

D. Notice necessary in contractual tenancies - once contractual tenancy has come to an end and the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, no further notice is required - Rent Restriction Act does not abrogate the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. LPA NO. 132/1971 (FB) GARIB SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH D/d 15.7.1971,

1972 AIR (PUNJAB) 99.

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Section 21-A - Sale of agricultural land or village immovable property - Vendee associating a stranger in the sale - Held, a vendee who his joined with him a stranger in purchasing agricultural land or village immovable property cannot the interests of the stranger co-vendee by gift or sale successfully resist the suit of pre-emption in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act - Judgment and decree of the Ld. single judge affirmed - Appeal dismissed.

3. RSA 79/1977(FB) GANPAT VS.SMT. RAM DEVI AND OTHERS D/d 13.10.1977,

1978 AIR (PUNJAB) 137.

Civil Procedure Code, Sections 100 and 4(1) and Punjab Courts Act, Section 41(1) - Interpretation of - Regular Second Appeal - The amended provisions of Section 100 of the Code have no effect where the provisions of Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act govern the field.

4. CRR NO. 220/1974 (DB) MOHINDER SINGH VS. SHRI DILBAGH RAI D/d 13.8.1976,

1976 PLR 803.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 145 - Litigation pending in a Civil Court - Ad-interim injunction issued restraining one party from interfering with the possession of other - Criminal Court whether can initiate proceedings under Section 145 and attach the disputed property - Yes - The ad-interim orders of the Civil Court do not restrain the criminal Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code and the Criminal Court can attach the disputed property.

5. LPA No. 418/1975 (FB) KAILASH VATI WIFE OF AYODHIA PARKASH VS. AYODHIA PARKASH, SON OF SHRI LACHHMAN DASS D/d 19.11.1976,

1977 PLR 216.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Wife gainfully employed at a place away from her matrimonial home - Refusal to leave her job to live with her husband - Such withdrawal from society of the husband cannot be deemed either reasonable or a sufficient excuse - "Consortium" - Meaning of - Consortium is no longer merely a husband's right to the companionship or the society of the wife but equally the wife's right to the companionship and society of the husband - Husband of a working wife - Whether abandons his rights to require the wife to live in the matrimonial home - Where the husband marries a woman already in service he does not by doing so impliedly give up his right to claim a common matrimonial home with his wife.

6. CRM NO. 2365-M/1977 (DB) KRISHAN MURARI AND ORS.VS. MOHINDER PAL D/d 30.3.1978,

1983(1) RCR (CRIMINAL) 21.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 397 (2) and 482 - Order summoning the accused is not an interlocutory order - The order is amenable to revision under Section 397(2) - Error of Magistrate would be amenable to High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Interlocutory order defined and explained. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2185 and AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47 relied.

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204 Summoning Order under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - It is no requirement of law that reasons for summoning the accused should be recorded in the order - The magistrate has only to apply his mind. 1975 CLR 448 and 1977 CLR 152 overruled.

7. LPA NO.79/1975 (DB) HANS RAJ AND OTHERS VS.SUNDER LAL AGGARWAL AND OTHERS D/d 1.3.1979,

1979 PLJ 548.

Civil Procedure Code, Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 - Appeal against a decree for partition - Death of one of the defendant-respondents during the pendency of appeal - Legal representatives not brought on record - Effect - Appeal dismissed as abated - Order 41 Rule 4 held not applicable for want of common interest of parties - Supreme Court authority distinguished.

7. ITR NO. 85/1974 (DB) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AMRITSAR-II VS. MOTHOORAM PREMCHAND D/d 22.05.1979,

1980(121) ITR 59.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that an appeal was maintainable before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to renew registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Held Yes.

8. ITR NO. 59/1974 (DB) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA VS. BHARAT CINEMA D/d 09.08.1979,

1980(121) ITR 165.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rs. 24,000 spent on cost of replacement of false ceiling was an expense of revenue nature ? held YES

9. LPA NO. 221/1977 (FB) KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. KAPUR SINGH AND ANOTHER D/d 18.2.1980,

1980 AIR (PUNJAB)202.

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sections 2(2) and 97 - Suit for redemption - Appeal against preliminary decree pending - Ad valorem Court fee paid on the memorandum of such appeal - Appeal against final decree Court fee payable on memorandum of appeal - Preliminary decree - Whether a final adjudication of the rights of the parties - If aggrieved of the preliminary decree does not prefer an appeal then the matters adjudicated there in cannot be attacked in an appeal filed against the final decree.

10. RSA NO. 1854/1979 (DB) GRAM SABHA BALAD KALAN AND ANOTHER VS. SARWAN SINGH AND OTHERS D/d 19.3.1981,

1981 PLJ 31.

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961), Section 13 - Retrospective - Question relating to Shamilat nature of land - Jurisdiction of Civil court. Held that pending suits i.e. suits instituted prior to enactment of Section 13. Civil court ceases to have jurisdiction to adjudicate.

11. CR NO. 202/1979 (DB) SANTOKH SINGH ETC. VS. M/S. SAT PAL JAYANTI PARSHAD D/d 28.11.1980,

1981(1) RentLR 278.

Estoppel by conduct - Remand order passed by Appellate Authority under the Rent Restriction Act, with the consent of parties - Effect - Parties cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of the order later on - 1972 Current Law Journal confirmed as good law.

12. CM-510-CI/1981 IN RFA 558/1979 (FB) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. M/S. LAXMI CHAND SUNDER DASS AND OTHERS D/d 15.9.1981,

1982 AIR (PUNJAB)48.

The Objects and Reasons of Punjab Court Amendment Act, 1980, will not certainly stand frustrated if the applicability of the Act remains confined to the appeals filed in the High Court after the commencement of the Act.

14. CR NO. 2298/1980 (FB) HARI PARSHAD GUPTA VS. JATINDER KUMAR D/d 30.11.1981, 1982(1) RCR (RENT) 138.

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 3 - Punjab Govt. Notification dated June 3.3.1959 - Transfer of Property Act, Section 108(h) - Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 - Landlord taking land from Municipal Committee and constructing a building and giving the same on rent - Rent Act is applicable to such a building - Govt notification granting exemption to land and buildings of Municipality, Boards etc, from Rent Act is not applicable to such a building. AIR 1927 PC 135 and AIR 1959 Supreme Court 799 relied. 1970 PLR 431: 1970 RCR 57 overruled.

Transfer of Property Act, Section 101(h) - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 3 - Lessee taking land on lease from Municipal Committee and constructing a building on it - Lessee is owner of building while land is owned by Municipal Committee - There can be two ownerships one of the land and other of the superstructure. 1968 PLR 913 (DB) relied.

15. RFA NO. 842/1981 MUKHTIAR SINGH VS. M.L. GOEL & ANOTHER D/d 9.3.1983,

1984 PLJ 21.

Specific Relief Act, Section 16(c) - Plaintiff to aver and prove that he has performed or was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Held that the Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix 'A' of Civil Procedure Code conform to Section 16(c) - It is incumbent on plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to set out; agreement in all its details, applied to defendant specially to perform agreement pleaded but defendant had not done so; and has been and is still ready and willing to specifically perform his part of agreement.

Specific Relief Act Section 16(c) - Ready and willing to perform contract, held that the relevant date for showing that plaintiff had funds to pay consideration is the date on which contract to be performed - No requirement of law that plaintiff must show funds till date of decree.

16. LPA NO. 628/1980 (DB) GURCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS D/d 16.5.1984,

1985 AIR (PUNJAB) 26.

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, Sections 9(1)(ii) - Resettled tenant on surplus area of landowner - Ownership right to not conferred before coming into force of Punjab Land Reforms Act tenant becomes allotee - Ejectment on ground of non-payment of rent is not competent - Held that surplus area covered by Section 8 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act and stands vested in Government and Resettled tenant becomes allottee of surplus area under Para 13 of Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 and is not liable to be ejected on ground of non-payment of rent.

B. Punjab Land Reforms Act, Section 8 - Surplus area under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act allotted to eligible tenant - Ownership rights not conferred on resettled tenant before coming into force of Act - Surplus area not to be treated as utilised for purposes of Section 8 - Vests in Government - Resettled tenant becomes allottee under Para 13 of Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973.

17. RSA NO. 1301/1977 UNION OF INDIA VS. SHRI RAGHU NANDAN AND OTHERS D/d 10.2.1986,

1987(1) PLR 361.

Limitation Act, Sections 5 and 14 - Appeal filed in wrong Court entertained by said Court - Period from date of filing appeal till the date returned by said Court for presentation to proper Court - Ought to be excluded for computing period of limitation - Held that appeal filed in wrong Court saw a result of a mistake resulting from bona fide but mistaken advice of lawyer is good ground for condoning delay.

18. RSA NO. 3548/1985 (DB) TEJ SINGH AND ORS. VS.JAGRUP SINGH AND ORS D/d 28.7.1988, 1989 PLJ 38.

Registration Act, 1908 Section 17(2)(vi) Civil Procedure Code, Order 23 Rule 3 - Compromise decree creating title in respect of immovable property of Rs. 100/- or more does not require registration - Court in subsequent suit not entitled to go behind compromise or consent decree.

19. RSA NO. 1218/1991 ARJAN SINGH VS. SMT. SURJIT KAUR D/d 16.12.1992,

1993(1)HLR 658.

Hindu Succession Act, Section 14(1) - Limited owner/Full owner/Gift - Before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, Hindu widow used to become limited owner of the property of her deceased husband as her life estate only - Any disposition of that property during her lifetime without legal necessity and without the consent of the next reversioners was not binding on the reversioners but nevertheless such alienation was binding upon her - Therefore once such limited owner gifted the property before coming into force of the Succession Act the property could not reverted back to her though the gift was illegal qua the reversioners and not binding for them - Even after coming into force of the Succession Act the reversioners are not estopped from claiming their right in that property as the donee was not possessing any right in that estate on the date of enforcement of the Act on which she could have become full owner of it - 1968 PLR 30, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1179, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1981 and AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana 141 followed.

20. CWP NO. 863/1992 GOPAL KRISHAN GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA D/d 23.7.1993,

1993 PLJ 603.

Land Acquisition Act, Section 5A - Acquisition - Objections/Hearing - Hearing envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act is not an empty formality - Enquiry under Section 5A is quasi-judicial in nature - Acquisition deprives of a person of his property and has the civil consequences - An objector must be given constructive and effective hearing before disposing of his objections - Disposing of large number of objection petitions in a perfunctory and casual manner laying much stress on public interest clearly indicates that the objections have not been considered according to the view point of the objectors and such consideration would be meaningless.

21. SAO NO. 16/1993 LACHHAMI DEVI VS.PALA SINGH D/d 16.10.1995,

1996(1) RRR 678.

Civil Procedure Code, Order 1 Rule 10 - Necessary and proper parties - Subsequent purchaser - Agreement to sell - Petitioner entering into agreement to sell during the pendency of the suit qua the same land has no right to be impleaded as a party - He is not an assignee - Any subsequent purchaser during the pendency of suit would be bound by the decree on the principle of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act - Such a subsequent proposed vendee is neither a necessary party nor proper party.

22. RSA NO. 1969/1979 PARDUMAN SINGH AND OTHER VS. KARTAR SINGH D/d 8.12.1995, 1996 PLJ 321.

A. Family Settlement/Family arrangement - Meaning of - Family settlement/arrangement is a compromise based on assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the contesting parties acknowledged by them and every one relinquishes certain claims other than one falling to his share and recognises the right of others - Such arrangement is arrived at to avoid conflicts among the joint family members on the issue of their rights in the property with a view to maintain harmony and peace in the family and to avoid present/future disputes among the joint family members bona fide and fairly - A document of disposition of property by Will is totally different than a family settlement.

B. Words and phrases/Interpretation of documents - While interpreting the document, the words and phrases used therein should be given its plain and natural meaning unless there is an ambiguity which necessitates the interpretation by deriving help from the attending circumstances - While interpreting a document of 'Will' the courts below instead of giving effect to its plain language, fell into an error to take help of the extraneous material and circumstances and termed it as a family settlement/arrangement - Since the document of 'Will' did not contain any ingredient of family settlement/arrangement, the courts below wrongly held the same to be a family settlement/arrangement - Document held to be a Will.

C. Will/Suspicious circumstances - Presence of beneficiary at the time of execution and reiteration of a Will is not a suspicious circumstance so as to invalidate the document.

D. Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 2(h) - Will/Family Settlement - 'A' executing a document of will in favour of 'B' for disposition of his property in the name of 'B' to be effective after his death - No right or interest relinquished by 'B' in favour of 'A' - Such a document can only be termed to be a 'Will' not a Family settlement.

23. RSA NO. 2488/1979 PARGAT SINGH VS. AAS KAUR (DIED) THROUGH HER L.R. LAKHA SINGH D/d 27.1.1997,

1997(3) RCR (CIVIL) 193.

A.Registration Act, 1908 Section 17 Will Requirement of law - Held, though it is not the requirement of law that the Will must be registered, so the registration of the Will dependent on the option of party, but if Will is registered, it adds to its authenticity.

B. Will - Suspicious circumstances : (i) Variation in statement of marginal witnesses about the date of death and execution of Will, (ii) Will not registered although facility was available, (iii) No reasons given in Will to ignore husband's sisters, (iv) rendering of service not proved, (vi) variation in statement regarding preparation of draft of Will, (vi) Scribe stated that lady who executed the Will was seen alive by him after six months of the execution of Will, (vii) no steps to get compared the thumb impressions.

24. LPA NO. 586/1993 (DB) GIAN CHAND VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA D/d 22.12.1998,

1999(3) RCR (CIVIL) 281.

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Section 9(1)(vii) - Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953, Rule 9 - Ejectment of tenants - Question whether the petitioners have a sufficient cause for not depositing the rent - Petitioners have not deposited the rent since 1974 - Counsel could not explain as to why the tenants did not execute 'Qabuliyat Nama' in terms of direction given by the Asst. Collector and why the appellants did not pay the rent at least at the old rates - No ground to disturb the conclusion of the Single Judge that the tenants have failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the rent.

B. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Section 9(1)(ii) - Liability of the tenant to be ejected - Failure to pay rent by the tenant - 'Sufficient Cause' - If word 'regularly' is construed as meaning at regular intervals so as to include a single default then the term 'without sufficient cause' becomes absolutely redundant - For the tenant, his case could be taken out of the ambit of clause (ii) of section 9(1) without insisting on the tenant to prove sufficient cause for this single default - That would make the words 'sufficient cause' meaningless in such cases.

25. LPA NO. 563/1991 (DB) JARNAIL SINGH VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATS D/d 19.1.1999,

1999(2) RCR (CIVIL) 42.

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 13-A and 13-B - Question of title - Jurisdiction of civil court - Civil Court decree - Civil Court decrees determining the title of shamlat lands after coming into force of Sections 13-A and 13-B of Punjab village Common Lands Act as amended by Punjab Act 19 of 1976 - Such decrees are null and void and are liable to be ignored - Provisions of the Act have overriding effect - Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such suits.

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 and 11 - Question of title - Lessee - Expiry of lease - A lessee holding over after expiry of term of his lease becomes unauthorised occupant - He can be ejected under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act without going into the question of title raised by him.

26. LPA NO. 1199/1992 (FB) GURCHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB D/d 4.6.1999,

1999(3) RCR (CIVIL) 585.

A. Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, Section 51A - Surplus land - Gallantry award land - Exemption of gallantry award lands - Gallantry award land left in Pakistan on partition and allotment in India on migration of allottee under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act - Whether the benefit of exemption under section 51A will be available to the allottee- big landlord to exclude award land from his permissible area while declaring surplus area with him - Held, yes - The purpose of introducing Section 51A with retrospective effect was that the gallant man should not be deprived of the land given to him by way of reward - They are a class apart - Classification is reasonable and just - If such benefit is not given, it would lead to anomalous results - It is intended to comfer benefit on the original grantee and his three successors - No artificial distinction can be made between persons who were initially allotted land in India and those who had migrated from Pakistan after allotment/awards.

B. Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, Section 51A - Surplus land - Allotment to tenants - Gallantry award lands - Gallantry award land wrongly declared surplus and allotted to the tenants from surplus pool on a small amount paid to the land-owner - By paying a small amount the allottees remained in cultivating possession for about 30 years - They cannot lay any claim on the Gallantry award land protected under section 51A of the Act - They may be entitled to allotment of other land from the surplus pool in accordance with law.

27. CWP NO.6404/1997 (FB) KRISHAN KUMAR SINGLA VS. STATE OF HARYANA D/d 22.7.1999,

2000(2) RCR (CIVIL) 101.

A. Constitution of India, Articles 142(1) and 145(5) - Precedents - Judgments and precedents - Provisions of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India are applicable in precedence to the provisions of Article 142(1) - Even if two judges of the same Bench have difference of opinion, matter has to be referred to the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench - Where there is a larger Bench decision on the law, all the single and division Benches of that court are bound to follow the larger Bench to maintain judicial propriety and decorum unless it is felt that the larger Bench decision was per incuriam and contrary to the law of the land - Even in that case the smaller Bench will not comment upon it but will place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench - Full Bench decision of Pb. & Hy. High Court in Raj Pal Chhabra's case 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 608 on the proposition of law considered therein is not per incuriam nor requires any reconsideration.

"the judicial propriety expects that the decisions of a larger Bench normally could not be subjected to the appellate or referral jurisdiction before a smaller Bench of the same Court lest it destroys the golden principle of judicial discipline, restraint and respect for judgments of the larger Bench(es)...." (para 13)

B. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, Amendment Act, 18, 1996, Sections 9, 21(3) - No confidence motion - Right of nominated members to participate and vote - Persons nominated as having special knowledge will not have a right to vote, but, those nominated being MLA and M.P. of the constituencies concerned will be entitled to vote in no confidence motion proceedings - Principles laid down in Raj Pal Chhabra's case 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 608 reaffirmed and held that, "it appears to be totally arbitrary that these members would have right to vote in day-to-day affairs of the Committee, but would be deprived of the right to vote in the meetings held for considering no confidence motion".

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 - Judicial review - Provisions of statute - Arbitrariness per se may not be a ground for adjudging the validity or otherwise of a legislative provision unless its effect is defeating the very object sought to be achieved by the Act.

D. Constitution of India, Article 243R(1) and (2) - Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, Section 9 (as amended by Act 18 of 1996) - Nominated members - Right to vote of nominated MLA & M.P. members - Exclusion or debarment of right of the nominated members being MLA & MP elected members to a much larger constituency of which the Municipal Committee is a small part, is unconstitutional and ultra vires of the protection given under Article 243R of the Constitution - Principles enunciated by the Full Bench in Raj Pal Chhabra's case 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 608 reaffirmed.

E. Constitution of India, Articles 246, 245(2) and 251 read with Entry 5 in List-II - Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, Sections 9 and 21(3) (as amended by Act 18 of 1996) - The Schedule and Lists of the Constitution are intended to aid the substantive provisions of the Constitution and cannot override the substantive law - Power of Union of India has precedence over the legislative power of the State.

28. CR NO. 1780/2001 SHREE KRISHNA RICE MILLS VS. THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. D/d 14.3.2002,

2003(3) RCR (CIVIL) 254.

Arbitration Act, 1996, Section 16 - If decision of any matter expressly provided in contract should not be reported to Arbitrator - Dispute regarding economic cost and award of interest covered by clause of agreement and it is to be decided by M.D. himself - No need to refer the same to arbitrator.

29.LPA NO. 139/1986 (DB) S.A. JAIN COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGING SOCIETY, AMBALA CITY, DISTRICT, VS. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, AMBALA AND ANOTHER D/d 28.9.2003,

2003(3) RCR (CIVIL) 718.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 30 - East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement Act), 1949, Section 9 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 40 - Alienation Act, Section 11 - Lease - Right of lessee to claim apportionment of compensation - Determination of lease on expiry of lease period - Lessee is left with no right on expiry of the period of lease - Once the authorities under the various Acts as also the Civil Court has already held the lease to have already determined and expired before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the lessee prior to that has no right to maintain an application under section 30 of the Act.

30. CR No. 3577/2006 (DB) RAJAN ALIAS RAJ KUMAR VS. RAKESH KUMAR D/d 07.01.2010,

2010(2)PLR 201.

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i) - Arrears of Rent - First date of hearing - Ejectment tenant sought on ground of arrears of rent - Rent Controller assessing the provisional rent and directing the tenant to pay the rent so assessed - If a tenant does not comply with the order on the first date of hearing after determination of the provisional rent and other ancillary expenses by the Court, then eviction has to follow - Ratio of Rakesh Wadhwan case, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514, explained. 2006(1) RCR(Rent) 438 (overruled) 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 93 (Approved).

31. CR No. 3690/2007 (DB) VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. M/S HARINDERA SCIENTIFIC WORKS, GUR BAZAR, SADAR, AMBALA, CANTT. D/d 18.05.2011,

2011(3) PLR 762.

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13 A(1A) - Eviction - Summary manner - Held that, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential and non-residential building in summary manner under Section 13A(1) and (1-A) of the Act - Case ordered to be listed before single judge for adjudication - Ordered accordingly.

and many more ....

Page updated

Report abuse