HC for speedy disposal of ejectment petitions; Is it good decision for landlords?
In a major relief to landowners seeking eviction of tenants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reminded the courts below that ejectment pleas on the ground of personal necessity were required to be disposed of expeditiously. The High Court has also asked the courts below to keep in mind the Supreme Court observations in the case of “Hameed Kunju versus Nazim”.
The apex court, among other things, had observed that the object of the rent laws all over the state was to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant, especially in those cases where the landlord sought eviction for his bona fide need. An eviction case is a lawsuit usually filed by a landlord against a tenant to recover possession of real property. Personal necessity is one of the grounds for eviction.
Such a lawsuit filed before a rent controller could take years before its disposal.
The reminder by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill came in a case where the ejectment application was filed by the petitioner-landlord in March 2017 on the ground of personal necessity. “A perusal of the zimni (interim) orders, annexed with the present petition, indicate that till date even the issues have not been framed,” Justice Gill added.
In his petition against M/s Ajay Garments, petitioner-landlord Ujjwal Sahrawat was seeking issuance of a direction to Rohtak rent controller to pass “some appropriate order” for assessment of provisional rent and for disposal of the ejectment application within a fixed time frame.
Taking up the matter, Justice Gill — on a previous date of hearing — directed Rohtak District and Sessions Judge to submit a report in the matter.
In response, the Bench was told that the rent controller, vide order dated May 14, 2018, has assessed the provisional rent of the premises in question at Rs 30,000 per month.
Justice Gill observed the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a direction to the rent controller for assessing the provisional rent was rendered infructuous after the passing of the order.
“In view of the position, Rohtak rent controller is directed to make efforts to conclude the proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of six months,” Justice Gill added.