SUSHMA RANI Vs. SHRI ZAHARIA MAL CHARITABLE VETERINARY HOSPITAL TRUST
LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-94
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 26,2011

SUSHMA RANI Appellant
VERSUS
Shri Zaharia Mal Charitable Veterinary Hospital Trust Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of three revision petitions bearing No.4466,4467 and 4468 of 2011, as petitioners in all these petitions are tenants of respondent No.1 and have been evicted in separate petitions but on similar grounds. However, for convenience sake the facts are taken from.
(2.) AS per the averments, respondent No.1 is the trust and respondents No. 2 to 6 are the trustees of respondent No.1. The trust also passed a resolution on 18.1.2004 for initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner. It is further averred that petitioner is a tenant in thedemised premises at a monthly rent of Rs.30/ - and is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.8.2002. The respondent -trust further submitted that the demised premises along with other rented premises were required by it for its personal bona fide need as the respondent trust had no accommodation for setting up generator room, store room, office, kitchen etc. Hence the eviction petition.
(3.) UPON notice, petitioner appeared and file written statement raising various preliminary objections. Ground of non payment of arrears was refuted submitting that a valid tender has been made. It was denied that the demised premises were required by the respondent -trust for its personal use and occupation and as it has got more than sufficient accommodation . All other material averments were controverted and dismissal of the petition was prayed. In the replication respondent controverted the allegation of the petitioner and reiterated the averments made in the eviction application. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: - 1. Whether the tender made on 14.6.2004 is illegal and invalid ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected for personal bona fide requirement of the petitioner 3. Whether the petition filed by a competent person ?OPP 4. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties ?OPR 4 -A. Whether the site plan appended with the petition is incorrect, if so its effect ?OPR;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.