TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether eviction under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 could be ordered against a person impleaded in the proceedings when the landlord had not specifically proceeded against him as tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the landlord to make a proper application seeking eviction of the tenant in possession on one of the grounds in Section 13(2). Where non-payment of rent is relied upon, the tenant must be specifically called upon to answer that claim so that the statutory opportunity to pay or tender arrears within the prescribed time is available. If the landlord proceeds against a different person while suppressing the real position and later seeks to obtain an ejectment order merely because the actual occupant is brought on record, the tenant so impleaded cannot be saddled with an obligation that was never properly asserted against him. Granting such relief would prejudice valuable statutory rights and would amount to giving the landlord relief beyond the case pleaded.
Conclusion: An ejectment order could not be passed against the impleaded person in the absence of a proper application specifically seeking his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.
TaxTMI 
