Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the east punjab urban rent restriction amendment act 1963 Page 1 of about 446 results (0.064 seconds)

Sep 20 2005 (HC)

Babu Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)144PLR529

..... within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the (date of commencement of the east punjab urban rent restrictions (amendment) act, 1985, whichever is later, supplies to the controller alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to ..... provisions of section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 would be applicable for condoning the delay in approaching the court was considered by a division bench of this court in ashwani kumar gupta v. shri siri pal jai . after referring to the provisions of section 13-a of the haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) act, 1973 (haryana act-for short)'which is par materia ..... is inconsistent with the provisions of section 13-a read with the prescribed form for issuance of summons under section 13-a(2) of the haryana act. therefore, neither the tenant can invoke the provisions of limitation act, 1963 nor can the controller use section 5 thereof for condoning the delay in filing an application under section 13-a(4) of the haryana ..... was held that the said judgment of the division bench is law per incuriam. accordingly, it was held that the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act, 1963, would apply to proceedings under the act in view of the judgment in mukri gopalan's case (supra). besides, also the fact that mukri gopalan's case had approved the minority view of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1988 (SC)

D.N. Malhotra Vs. Kartar Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1988(1)SC213; 1988(1)SCALE223; (1988)1SCC656; [1988]2SCR833; 1988(1)LC572(SC)

..... 1963 and the appellant has been inducted as a tenant in respect of the said house in 1968. this clearly evinces that the respondent was not a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2(hh) of the said act as the appellant was inducted as a tenant after his retirement from the service of the union. section 13-a of east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act ..... one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1985, whichever is later, to the controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service for directing the tenant to give him ..... one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and ..... granted leave to the tenant to contest the petition on the following ground:whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined in section 2(hh) of the east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1985. 4. the petitioner-landlord examined himself and he also filed a certificate issued to him by regional settlement commissioner who was his appointing authority. this .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2005 (HC)

Radhe Sham Vs. Ruchi Rajput

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)141PLR167

..... m.m. kumar, j.1. this is tenant's petition filed under section 15(5) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the court below holding that the demised shop is required for bona fide personal necessity of the landlady-respondent.2. necessary ..... 's case (supra) has relied upon the interpretation given to the expression 'himself' used in paragraph (h) of schedule i of the english rent and mortgage interest restrictions (amendment) act, 1933 in the case of richter v. wilson, 1963(2) all.e.r. 335. it has cited with approval the division bench judgment of karnataka high court in the case of syed sibgathullah ( ..... such she is entitled to practice as a doctor within the state of punjab. she is otherwise physically handicapped. it has also been conceded that there is ..... ejectment petition being rent case no. 40 of 26.11.1998 against the tenant-petitioner seeking his ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide necessity. she is a graduate from the board of ayurvedic and unani systems of medicine, punjab (for brevity, 'the board') and is a registered medical practitioner under the punjab ayurvedic and unani practitioners act, 1963 (for brevity, '1963 act') and as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2004 (HC)

United Engineers and anr. Vs. Nirmal Bhasin

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)139PLR731

..... m.m. kumar, j.1. this is tenants petition filed under section 15(5) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (as applicable to union territory, chandigarh) (for brevity 'the act') challenging concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below holding that the tenant-petitioners have carried material alterations in the demised premises resulting into impairment of its value and ..... the construction of a temporary shed in the rear courtyard. the notice has been issued under section 8.a of the capital of punjab (development and regulation) act, 1952 (for brevity, '1952 act') as amended by the chandigarh administration amendment act no. 17 of 1973 and it calls upon the landlady-respondent to explain as to why the demised premises alongwith the building be ..... case of m/s ram gopal banarasi dass (supra) cannot be accepted because this court while interpreting clauses (g) and (i) of section 41 of the specific relief act, 1963 has held that a landlord cannot claim ad-interim injunction restraining a tenant from committing a breach in which he had acquiesced or from doing business in the demised premises ..... firstly the landlady-respondent has not granted any permission for raising even temporary construction by virtue of clause (5) of the lease deed nor any provision of specified relief act, 1963 is involved in this case. even if it is presumed that permission for raising temporary alternations like wooden partition has been granted by the landlady-respondent to the tenant- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2003 (HC)

Jawand Singh Bhatia Vs. Narinder Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)133PLR730

..... clearly evinces that the respondent was not a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2(hh) of the said act as the appellant was inducted as a tenant after his retirement from the service of the union. section 13-a of east punjab urban rent restriction (amendment) act, 1985 in clear terms enjoins that 'where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or ..... within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the said act makes an application to recover possession of the ..... bhatia, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord), has filed the instant revision petition against the order passed by the rent controller, amritsar, vide which the ejectment application filed by him under section 13-a of the east punjab urban rent restriction act (amendment),1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1985') for eviction of narinder singh (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the premises in question on ..... i.e., he must be a specified landlord in respect of the house in question on the date of his retired from the service of the union i.e., in 1963. the landlord, as it appears has not fulfilled this requirement in as much as after his retirement from services of the union he has let out the premises to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1983 (HC)

Arunachalam Vs. Kesavan Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1983)2MLJ166

..... for decision in the present case. in that case which arose under the provisions of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, a lease of the premises was granted on 1st november, 1959, even as the building was under construction, which was completed in march, 1960. thereafter, on 14th january, 1963, a suit in ejectment was filed against the tenant in occupation, which resulted in a decree ..... court. in doing so, reliance was placed upon the change in the statutory provision with effect from 30th june, 1973, brought into force by amending act xxiii of 1973 as justifying the applicability of section 10 of the act resulting in the inexecutability of the decree. that case was concerned with the non-availability of the exemption on account of the introduction of ..... had been taken for the enforcement of rights on the footing of its availability within that period, was not touched upon. further, the decision is based mainly on the amendment of the act in question. that decision cannot therefore be applied to the instant case. in abdul azeez and sons v. mavalirajan (1977) t.l.n. j.69 the question arose whether ..... respondent had earlier filed h r.c. no. 27 of 1978 for fixation of fair rent but had not pursued it and that the provisions of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act xviii of 1960 as amended by act xxiii of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the act) would apply and therefore, the suit will not be maintainable.2. on a consideration of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1991 (HC)

Udho Ram Vs. Swaran Kanta

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1992P& H39

..... was transferred to bhagwan das who was also owner of another house no. 8/ bix. he left behind a will dated january 3, 1963. under ..... order1. the tenant is in revision against order of ejectment passed by the rent controller, ludhiana dated august 11, 1990 u/s. 13-a of the east punjab urban rent restriction act (as amended) hereinafter referred to as 'the act') while declining leave to the tenant to contest ejectment application.2. house no. b.ix-2 (old)/ b-x. 752 (new) situated at ludhiana was an evacuee property. it ..... of contest or that filing of an affidavit without containing such grounds which could be supplemented at a later stage, cannot be accepted. the very purpose of the amendment of the act made for summary eviction of the tenant at the instance of the specified landlord for personal requirement of the landlord would stand frustrated.7. it has been argued by ..... the rent controller was taken to convert the nature of the property to be non-residential. for all intents and purposes the building in dispute remained residential. swaran kanta got employment as teacher and remained posted out of ludhiana. she alleged that she was due to retire on may 31, 1990. she being a specified landlord as defined under the amended act, she .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2007 (HC)

Paramjit Kaur Vs. Gurcharan Singh Walia

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)149PLR539

..... , the nris were unable to recover possession of their own residential building from the tenants. government having considered the situation had decided that the existing rent legislation viz. east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 should be amended to provide relief of nris to enable them to recover possession of a residential or scheduled building and/or one non-residential building for their own use. ..... .2. the respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 13-b of the act seeking immediate possession of the shop situated opposite to civil hospital ..... against the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the learned rent controller, tarn taran dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for leave to defend and thereby allowing petition filed under section 13-b of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, as amended in the year 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and order of ejectment has been passed against the tenant-petitioner ..... have been issued in his favour by the usa. he claimed that he was exclusive owner of the demised shop on the basis of sale-deed dated 25.5.1963 and on the basis of family settlement dated 3.12.1985 which was part of the building situated in the area of amritsar road opposite civil hospital, tarn taran .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1996 (HC)

Kewal Krishan Vs. Smt. Lajwanti

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)115PLR198

..... was held that as he is not specified landlord qua the demised premises and the tenant, he cannot claim his ejectment under section 13-a of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (amendment) act, 1985.2. in my considered view, the contention is devoid of any force. in risaldar surjit singh's case (supra), the landlord retired from ..... retirement qua the premises from which eviction is being sought. if he is so and had retired before the coming into force of the amendment act (punjab act no. 2 of 1985), he can exercise his right to get the tenant evicted under the summary procedure within one year of the coming into ..... force of the amendment act and if he is in service when the amendment act had come into force he can exercise that right within one year prior to his retirement as well as within one year ..... after his retirement.3. in d.m. malhotra's case (supra), the apex court has considered this very provision and has held that the landlord retired in 1963. he ..... let out the premises to the tenant-appellant in 1968. on these facts, it was held that this clearly evidences that the respondent was not a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of section 2(hh) of the said act as the appellant was inducted as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1968 (SC)

Keshavlal Jethalal Shah Vs. Mohanlal Bhagwandas and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1968SC1336; (1968)GLR868(SC); [1968]3SCR623

..... august 1956 under s. 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. an appeal was provided under s. 15 of the act from the order of the rent controller, and sub-s. (4) of s. 15 provided that the decision of the appellate authority, and subject only to such decision, the order of the controller shall be final. by amending act 29 of 1956 which came into force ..... by the respondent on july 22, 1958; it was decided on october 28, 1961; the appellate court decided the appeal on february 25, 1963 and the amending act 18 of 1965 came into effect on june 17, 1965. the high court exercised the jurisdiction invested by act 18 of 1965 in respect of a judgment which had become final a long time before that ..... subject to revision by the custodian general, the order of the custodian was denuded of its finality. in dafedar niranjan singh and another v. custodian evacuee property (pb.) and anr.[1963] 1 s.c.r. 214. this court held that where an order of the custodian had become final under the patiala evacuee (administration of property) ordinance, its finality could not ..... court dismissed the claim for ejectment and passed a decree for arrears of rent and permitted increases. in appeal under s. 29 of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act 57 of 1947 - section 29 the decree was confirmed on february 25, 1963. by s. 29(2) of that act, as it then stood, no appeal lay against any decision in appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //