Kamal Raj Bansal Vs.
Rajpaul Singh  INSC 90 (19 January 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 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) VERSUS RAJPAUL SINGH Respondent(s) (With prayer for
interim relief ) Date: 19/01/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
S.H. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta,
Ms. M.F. Humayunisa,
Mr. Kumar Dushyant
Mr. R. Nedumaran,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.
Neeraj K. Jain, Adv.
Mr. Aman Preet Jain,
Mr. Bhaskar Y.
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.347 OF 2009 (Arising out
of SLP(C) No.29807 of 2008) KAMAL RAJ BANSAL ...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS ORDER
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.