TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by any of the observations made by the High Court while disposing of Civil Revision Petitions - APPEAL NOS.3402-3404 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2009 - CHATTERJEE, TARUN AND DATTU, H.L., JJ. JUDGMENT H.L. Dattu,J. 1) This is a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order dated 28.4.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. We grant special leave and dispose of this appeal. 2) By the judgment and the order impugned, High Court has allowed and remanded all the three Revision Petitions to the Rent Controller, Nakodar, to reconsider all the issues raised in the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act in accordance with law. 3) The factual mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of defence, it was alleged by Vijay Kumar that he is not the tenant of the disputed shop, and it is his brother Vipin Kumar is the tenant and is running the shop in his own name and, therefore, the proceedings filed under section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. 6) The Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide its order dated 15.6.2007, without giving any finding with regard to the status of the respondent/Gurmit Kaur being NRI or not, had concluded that the tenancy created in favour of Vijay Kumar stands prima facie proved from the rent deed dated 7.7.1993 and as such there is no tenancy created in favour of Vipin Kumar and therefore, the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nakodar, to reconsider the application filed by the tenants under Section 18-A of the Act in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of remand so passed, the appellants are before us in this appeal. 10) The Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the order in Vijay Kumar s case does not even record a finding to the effect that the respondent is an NRI; hence the inferential finding in Vijay Kumar s case could not be binding in the cases of the appellants. It is further submitted that the Rent Controller in Vijay Kumar s case has accepted the claim of the respondent on the ground that Vijay Kumar in order to avoid the order of eviction had stated that his brother Vipin Kumar is the tenant of the shop premises, but in fact it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
