Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

RAVINDER SINGH V/S MUKHTIAR SINGH, decided on Monday, October 31, 2011.
[ In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Civil Revision No.2401 of 2011 (O&M). ] 31/10/2011
Advocate(s) : A.D.S. Sukhija.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Homeopathic Surgeon Association of India Versus Union of India & Others,   08/02/2017.  

  Tofiq Ali Versus State of Rajasthan,   20/11/2015.  

  Aerens Entertainment Zone Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mukhtiar Singh Bal,   24/09/2015.  

  Iqbal Singh Versus State of Haryana ,   18/08/2015.  

  Lalit Gupta, Delhi Versus The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, New Delhi & Another,   10/01/2014.  

  Pawan Kumar Versus Anjana Kumari,   24/06/2013.  

  Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Versus The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay,   21/03/2013.  

  Natasha Kohli Versus Man Mohan Kohli,   25/02/2013.  

  Gajender Parkash & Another Versus State of Haryana,   05/03/2012.  

  Mitra Sankar Nanda Versus State of Orissa & Another,   05/05/2010.  

  RAZAB ALI VERSUS STATE ,   25/11/2004.  

  Ravinder Pal Singh & Anr. Versus State of Punjab ,   29/11/2002.  

  Raj Singh Versus State of Haryana,   09/10/2002.  

  Nawab Versus State of Punjab,   05/10/2000.  

  Avtar Singh Versus State of Punjab,   05/02/1997.  

  Ravinder Singh Dhillon Versus Mukhtiar Singh,   23/01/1996.  

  Rampiari Versus Collector Sub Division,   21/09/1993.  


  Mukhtiar Singh Versus Inspector Customs, Ferozepur,   02/03/1989.  

  Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Another Versus Messrs S. Chokesiri and Company ,   09/08/1988.  

  Mukhtiar Singh Versus State of Punjab,   28/08/1984.  

  Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Ravinder Kumar Gupta Since Deceased Representedby His Lrs,   06/03/1983.  

  Daulat Ram Versus Girdhari Lal,   15/01/1980.  

  Dalbir Kaur and Others Versus State of Punjab ,   20/08/1976.  

  Sarwan Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab ,   11/08/1976.  

  Mukhtiara Versus Sardarni Virpal Kaur,   17/03/1967.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2012 (1) RCR(Civil) 264"  ==   "2011 (2) RCR(Rent) 585"  ==   "2011 (2) RentLR 641"  

    East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 - Section 13-B -     Rakesh Kumar Garg J.This is tenant's revision petition challenging order dated 22.12.2006 of Rent Controller Dasuya ordering his eviction from the demised premises and judgment dated 15.1.2011 of the Appellate Authroity dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order.2. Shorn of unnecessary details it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered by the authorities below on the ground that the petitioner has effected material alterations and thus has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute by removing the intervening wall in between the demised shop and the shop under the tenancy of Balwinder Singh (brother of the petitioner).3. The authorities below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding holding that the petitioner has removed the said wall which was a load-bearing wall and removal of the same has impaired the value and utility of both the shops which belong to Mukhtiar Singh respondent.4. Challenging the aforesaid findings learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings of the authorities below are result of misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record and there is no evidence on record that the petitioner has removed the said wall. It is the further case of the petitioner that the landlord has failed to prove that there was any damage or alternation to the demised shop and in absence of any such evidence the eviction of the petitioner cannot be ordered on the said ground.5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.6. The question whether the petitioner has removed the intervening wall in between the demised shop and the shop under the tenancy of his brother is a question of fact. The petitioner has placed on record rent agreements executed by the landlord with him and his brother Balwinder Singh.7. From the description of properties given in the aforesaid agreements it is clearly made out that these were two separate shops having a wall in between both the shops. Admittedly the wall between both the shops is not existing now.8. In view of the aforesaid fact alone which could not be disputed the findings of both the authorities below cannot be faulted with.9. Dismissed.