Ajit Singh Babbar vs Kirpal Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 289 P&H

(109-2) CR No. 2803 of 2022 (O&M)                                           -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH

                                                CR No. 2803 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision: 09.01.2023
Ajit Singh Babbar                                             ...... Petitioner.
                                     Versus
Kirpal Singh                                                 ..... Respondent.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:-   Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

                              ****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.05.2022

(Annexure P-4) whereby the application of the petitioner/defendant under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' - for short), has

been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the suit

had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner/

defendant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,

1949 ('Act of 1949' - for short), although the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 ('Act of

1995' - for short) had come in operation, as the tenancy commenced on

04.12.2015. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust &

Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman versus M/s

Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/

Managing Trustee, 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 811 and also the judgment of a

1 of 3

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar and others

versus Kamla Devi and others, 2016 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 525.

Heard.

The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction on the

ground of bona fide personal necessity and non-payment of rent. The suit had

been filed under the Act of 1949 although there is no dispute that the Act of

1995 had come in operation and would be applicable to the instant case, as

the tenancy commenced on 04.12.2015. It is well settled that mere

nomenclature of the application would not be determinative of its

maintainability, as it is the substance and not the form of the application,

which would be material for adjudication. It has been held by this Court in

the case of Krishan Kumar (supra) that an application under Order 7 Rule 11

of the CPC cannot be allowed on the ground that the petition has been filed

under the Act of 1949, but the Act of 1995 has come in operation.

The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner/defendant are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the

instant case. There is no denying the proposition laid down in the case of

Krishan Kumar (supra) that the Act of 1995 would be applicable to the

tenancy which commenced after 30.11.2013. It was also observed by the

Court that if the petition has been filed under the Act of 1949, then the

petitioner can be permitted to amend the same.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Church of

Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society (supra) pertains 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

2 of 3

on which the cause of action had been based although it is so mandated under

Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC.

Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order

dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) rejecting the application preferred by the

petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The application

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC could have been allowed on account of

non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint itself. However, in the instant

case, in the plaint for ejectment, the pleadings for the eviction on account of

personal necessity and non-payment of arrears of rent had been set out and,

therefore, it cannot be held that it does not disclose the cause of action.

Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                           (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
09.01.2023                                            JUDGE
Ramesh

                   Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No
                   Whether reportable                 :     Yes/No




                                 3 of 3