LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

KAMAL RAJ BANSAL vs RAJPAUL SINGH on 19 January, 2009

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-000347-000347 - 2009Official PDFBench Sarosh Homi Kapadia, Aftab AlamAdvocates R. NEDUMARAN | BHASKAR Y. KULKARNI

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29807/2008

(From the judgment and order dated 11/09/2008 in CRP No. 876/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

KAMAL RAJ BANSAL Petitioner(s)

RAJPAUL SINGH Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief )

Date: 19/01/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr.Adv.

Ms. M.F. Humayunisa, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv.

Mr. R. Nedumaran,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Adv.

Mr. Aman Preet Jain, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Chaturvedi, Adv.

Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

The Civil Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S. Thapar) (Madhu Saxena)

PS to Registrar Court Master The signed order is placed on the file.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.347 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.29807 of 2008)

In this case the Rent Controller has refused to grant leave to defend, hence this

Civil Appeal is filed by the tenant.

We have gone through the records. We are satisfied that the leave has been rightly

rejected. However, from such rejection it does not follow that the landlord has not to prove

the ingredients of Section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. We may

also add that the appellant herein would have right to cross-examine the landlord in pending

proceedings.

Subject to above, we dismiss the appeal and direct the Rent Controller to decide

the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months from today.

There shall be no order as to costs.

January 19, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]