As a result of reorganization of the State of Punjab by Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, Chandigarh was carved out as a Union Territory with effect from 1.11.1966.
The result of this decision was that East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ceased to be applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
234 of 2003 Raminder Pal Singh Sethi Petitioner Vs.
The appellant tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises subject to his filing the usual undertaking within one month.
Thereafter, the Parliament enacted the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Extension to Chandigarh Act, 1974 for short Chandigarh Extension Act , which was published in Gazette on 20.12.1974.
The respondent filed a petition for eviction of O.P. Vij on the grounds, inter alia, that he was having his clinic in House No.
The Central Government issued a Notification on 13.10.1972 by which East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh with effect from 4.11.1972.
Writ Petition Civil No.
The writ petition and the I.As.
The tenant O.P. Vij companytested the eviction petition on various grounds and the principal ground urged was that eviction of a tenant cannot be sought on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord under the relevant provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Extension to Chandigarh Act, 1974 or the amendment made to the said Act in the year 1982.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with companyts.
In this view of the matter, we do number companysider it necessary to adjudicate the pleas raised in the writ petition as substantive relief has already been granted to the writ petitioner.
moved therein are disposed of.
234 of 2003, Civil Appeal Nos.
5, Sector 16 A, Chandigarh, but the owner of the said premises, namely, Shri Wasan Singh had filed an eviction petition against him on the ground that he was a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2 hh of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for short 1949 Act and the said petition was pending adjudication before the Rent Controller.
Rakesh Vij then preferred a revision under Section 15 5 of the 1949 Act in the High Court, but the same was dismissed on 20.12.2000.
During the pendency of the appeal the original tenant O.P. Vij died and his legal heirs including the present appellant Rakesh Vij, who is his son, were substituted in his place.
7049/2001, 3551/2002, 7920 7921/2002 and Special Leave Petition Civil No.Union of India Anr.
WITH Writ Petition Civil No.
7049/2001, 3551/2002, 7920 7921/2002 and S.L.P. Civil No.
Civil Appeal Nos.
2894 of 2001, we have held that under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh by East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Extension to Chandigarh Act, 1974, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a number residential building on the ground of his own use.
2894 of 2001 This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2000 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by which the revision preferred by the appellant against the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority was dismissed.
20444/2001 P. Mathur, J. Civil Appeal No.
In Civil Appeal No.
Before examining the legal issues raised by the learned companynsel for the parties it will be companyvenient to numberice the facts of the case in brief.
The respondent Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi is a Dental Surgeon and he is companyowner along with his wife of a premises described as Shop cum Flat for short SCF in Sector 37 A, Chandigarh, in which father of the appellant late O.P. Vij was a tenant.
This Act may be called the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Extension to Chandigarh Act, 1974.
The respondent wanted to set up a bigger dental clinic with modern gadgets, more number of dental chairs, provision for x ray examination, orthopentamorgrams and radio video graphs and other facilities for which the space required was wholly inadequate in the rented premises currently in his occupation.
The validity of this Notification was challenged and a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Harkishan Singh vs. Union of India and others AIR 1975 PH 160, declared the Notification to be invalid.
The Rent Controller, after a thorough examination of evidence on record, allowed the eviction petition by the judgment and order dated 16.9.1999 and the said order was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 16.11.2000.
