Revision petition dropped by Punjab high court – No Merit
TITLE: Managing Director, MARKFED v S.C. Bhalla & others
Decided On-: February 22, 2023
CRA-S-870-SB-2004 (O&M)
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Ms Alka Sarin
INTRODUCTION- The contested order, dated 04.03.2022, (Annexure P4), issued by the Rent Controller and challenging it, states that the application for amendment of the ejectment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), was granted.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The owner of the property in question, S.C. Bhalla, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as it applied to Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”) for the eviction of the petitioner from the entire first, second, and third floors of SCO No. 22, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on the grounds of subletting, personal necessity, material alteration, and other reasons.
S.C. Bhalla, the original owner, passed away while the eviction petition was pending, and his legal representatives were subsequently added as parties.
The legal representatives moved an application for amendment of the ejectment petition for pleading his own bona fide personal necessity after being impleaded as parties. The first respondent in this case wanted to change paragraph 11 to read that since the petitioner herein has not paid the arrears of rent relating to the premises, the cause of action is still ongoing. He also wanted to add paragraph 10-A after paragraph 10 to clarify that he did not own and did not possess any other commercial property in the urban area of Chandigarh. The contested order dated 04.03.2022 approved the amendment request.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Since the ejectment petition was filed on the basis of S.C. Bhalla’s bona fide personal necessity, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since he has since passed away, respondent No. 1 in this case would need to file a separate ejectment petition if he wanted to assert his own bona fide personal necessity.
Contrarily, knowledgeable counsel for respondent No. 1 argues that subsequent events can be taken into account and the legal heirs of the deceased landlord can pursue the eviction.petition on the grounds of their own individual need in place of the late landlord’s need.
Both the counsel have relied their arguments on previous judgments of the Supreme court
Whereas the court has come to the decision -There is no issue with the Rent Controller’s contested order approving the application to amend the eviction petition for claiming the genuine personal necessity of the legal representatives. The contested order contains no legal or jurisdictional errors. As a result, I do not think the current revision petition has any merit, and it is therefore dismissed. Any pending applications stand abandoned as well.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by– Steffi Desousa