MANGAL SINGH ALIAS MANGAT SINGH vs NIRMAL SINGH AND ANOTHER — CR/622/2024

Case under Punjab Rent Act Section 15(15). Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010140762024

Filing Number

CR/5420/2024

Filing Date

31-Jan-2024

Registration No

CR/622/2024

Registration Date

01-Feb-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Coram

Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Bench Type

Single

Category

30.54 - CR FILED BY TENANT AGNST FO/JUDG IN RENT ACT PB. ( 531 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Punjab Rent Act Section 15(15)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANGAL SINGH ALIAS MANGAT SINGH

    Adv. GOURAV GOEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NIRMAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.M/S GREWAL ROAD CARRIERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harkesh ManujaView PDF

    Case Summary: CR/622/2024 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed tenant Mangal Singh's revision petition challenging his eviction from Shop No. 2 in Ludhiana. The court upheld the lower authorities' findings that the respondents (Nirmal Singh and M/s Grewal Road Carriers) were legal landlords with registered ownership rights, rejecting Singh's claim that Tara Singh was the actual landlord based on unsubstantiated evidence. The court also upheld the eviction on grounds of bona fide personal necessity—that the property was genuinely required for the landlord's son to establish an independent business—finding no illegality or perversity in the eviction orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/622/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR/622/2024 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed tenant Mangal Singh's revision petition challenging his eviction from Shop No. 2 in Ludhiana. The court upheld the lower authorities' findings that the respondents (Nirmal Singh and M/s Grewal Road Carriers) were legal landlords with registered ownership rights, rejecting Singh's claim that Tara Singh was the actual landlord based on unsubstantiated evidence. The court also upheld the eviction on grounds of bona fide personal necessity—that the property was genuinely required for the landlord's son to establish an independent business—finding no illegality or perversity in the eviction orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case