On January 09, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while upholding an order dismissing an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, observed that the same could not be allowed on the ground that the petition was filed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, but the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 was in operation.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.05.2022 whereby the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was dismissed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, although the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 was in operation, as the tenancy commenced on 04.12.2015. The supreme court Judgments in the cases, Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman versus M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/ Managing Trustee, and Krishan Kumar and others versus Kamla Devi and others, were referred.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and non-payment of rent was filed by the respondent and the same was filed under the Act of 1949 although there was no dispute that the Act of 1995 was in operation and would have been appliable as the tenancy commenced on 04.12.2015. Moreover, it was well settled that a mere nomenclature of the application was not determinative of its maintainability, as it was the substance and not the form of the application, which was material for adjudication and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC could not be allowed on the ground that the petition was filed under the Act of 1949, but the Act of 1995 came in operation.
It was further observed by the court that if the petition was filed under the Act of 1949, then the petitioner could be permitted to amend the same. Moreover, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society pertaining to the Specific Relief Act and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was allowed as the plaintiff therein did not set out particulars of documents on which the cause of action was based although it was so mandated under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was dismissed and the court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.05.2022, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Case Title: Ajit Singh Babbar Vs. Kirpal Singh
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal
Case No.- CR No. 2803 of 2022 (O&M)
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Parvinder Singh
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
