Eviction
gurinder
(Querist) 27 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
I bought a commercial property a year ago in patiala which was on rent and is giving rent just about Rs-5500/- whereas the rent is far high and been occupied since 20 years, the tenant is not ready to vacate the place,his rent agreement is with the last owner ,what if I want to vacate the place or get into new rent agreement but he is not ready to do so and want to occupy the place just like that .. what rights I have ..and what is the procedure ...??
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 27 July 2013
You have to first give the tenant an eviction notice to quit and vacate the premises within one clear month.
After the said expiry you can file suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide use.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 July 2013
You should serve him with one month notice that you have bought it for your own bonafide need and he should vacate it where after file eviction as per rent control law in your state as they differ in state to state a consultation with rent law practitioner of your area would be better way to understand remedies under law of your state.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 27 July 2013
File an eviction petition before Rent Controller Patiala after giving one month notice for vacation on the ground of your personal needs. You shall definitely get the desired relief.
Shantilal Pandya
(Expert) 28 July 2013
Thanks to all experts,I would like all experts to please consider the question with special reference to specific provisions under section 2(2)-the definition- of decree- order 7 rule 11 (d)- rue 13 and to some extent order 2 rule (2)and (3),
the requirement of service of notice is almost analogous to that of Section 80 cpc but not providing for exemption from service of notice in case of urgency,
Hon'ble experts are also requested to consider the views of the Sureme Court in the case of J.N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality reported in AIR 1996 SC 2520
In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the action of the Panchayat is illegal on the face of it, it cannot be said to be an act under the Act or purported to be under the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed and held that the bar of limitation or notice cannot operate against the appellants-original plaintiffs in such a case
I thank all the experts for having contributed through their valuable views to the discussion on the topic on hand
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 28 July 2013
Dear Mr. Shantilal Pandya !
Brief is with you hence you can be the best judge to arrive at conclusion that notice of
demolition served upon plaintiff is bad and void and beyond the Act just due to certain infirmities therein mentioned earlier by you.
The decision cited by you is based on a sound reasoning as rules framed to do an act were not followed at all.
But this decision may not be applicable to your facts of the case unless you are in position to show that there were pre framed rules to be followed before serving the notice of demolition and they were not observed making the act beyond the Act,hence no notice required.We need to distinguish between an illegality and irregularity as former renders the activity void but not the latter.
And your post has appeared on a query other than that of your original.
Shantilal Pandya
(Expert) 28 July 2013
Respected experts,
The SC judgment is based on principles of natural justice and is applicable in all cases where adverse orders are contemplated to be passed against any person without hearing him regardless of the fact that relevant statute does not provide for such a hearing ,the Panchayt must afford an opportunity of hearing before any area of superstructure is demolished. that can be done only by a reasoned order after due hearing and the order should contain the exact area sought to be demolished, and until that is done ,action of the panchayt cannot be said be legal and can be termed as an order without jurisdiction as arbitrary and violatiive of natural justice, and therefore service of notice before suit was not necessary, my query is also on the question as the impugned order amounted to decree and may be appeallable,while order 7 rule 13 provides that a rejected plaint can be refiled after meeting with the objections against the suit and there fore a preferred course of remedial action is solicited.
This is my personal matter on hand thanks to all experts!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 28 July 2013
Remarking brief is with you i did not mean whose matter is this but simply i conveyed that facts awareness is definitely with you.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 28 July 2013
i opined as per my understanding,i am sorry
it is not helpful to you.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 28 July 2013
A is Landlord, have many accommodations
B is Tenant, who refuses to vacate + A cannot prove, he need rented premises, so case fails. His Property valuation is almost Nil, as tenanted property.
So A sell it on paper & regd it to a bagger,"C" who is homeless, and File Eviction suit, as he need it very badly.
There are many C avl to A so that he can get it vacated, and re purchase it from C.
WHAT A IDEA??
The moment A sell it, he proves he do not need rented premises.
C cannot vacate it as he purchased with full knowledge that property is having lawful tenants.C have many choice to purchase vacant property too.
So this idea, by new purchaser to vacate it cannot work... C must Fail.
Think over, where you stand??? A or C??
Shantilal Pandya
(Expert) 29 July 2013
it appears that my posting is done on a wrong head of topic .it should have been under civil law order 7 rule 11 and 13 ,, I am very much sorry for this mistake .
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 29 July 2013
True Mr. Shantilal Pandya!
And i reminded you about it in my above said
post.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 29 July 2013
@Mr.VR SHROFF!
Well conceived argument but would not prevail in state of U.P. because state legislature did not conceive the way you had and have provided a ground of the nature spoken by me.
If Maharashtra has not then okay as in many
states you can plead bona fide need to get vacated only residential premises and not commercial.
How is it in punjab?
Mr.Kiran Kumar can speak?
Or may be Mr. makkad too as these two states have so many common laws.
