Brij Mohan vs Laxmi Narain Alias Lichhu

V.S. Aggarwal. J.—The present petition has filed by Brij Mohan aggarwal directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hisar dated 23.8.1991. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the main petition.

At the outset it can well be mentioned that though in the petition large number of prayers had been but since only the copy of one order has been filed, this court is confining itself to the legality and propriety of the same.

The main petition had been dismissed in default. The petitioner claimed that he had met with an accident on 4.10.1990. He had sent information about it to the Court. Earlier to that his son also appeared and requested for adjournment. It was prayed that the petition dismissed in default, may be restored. Needless to state that the application was resisted. While the application was filed even a petition was filed seeking condonation of delay. The learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order held that there is not authenticated of delay. The learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order held that there is no authenticated proof that the petitioner was involved in accident and the application otherwise also was barred by time. Earlier also the petitioner had moved similar application. Taking stock of these facts, the application revision petition has been filed.

Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Controller has not been given all the powers of the civil court. The provisions of CPC have not been made applicable in toto. The Controller thus is not a civil court though it may have the trapping of the civil court. u/s 10 of the said Act, the authority has been given the same power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence as mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure. u/s 18 of the Act, every under the provisions of the Act could be executed by the civil court having jurisdiction as if it was a decree or order of that Court. But strict other provisions of the Code have not been made applicable. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller was in error in strictly following the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Subhash Chander v. Shri Rehmat Ullah 1972 RCR 977 was concerned with relevant provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court of the Controller is not for all practicable purposes a Court nor the CPC in entirety applies with all vigour and strength. It was held that keeping in view this fact, the provisions of Indian Limitation Act would also not be attracted. Same view prevailed with this Court in the case of Inderjit Pal v. Shankar 1985 (1) RCR 508 and it was held:-

"It is now well settled that the Rent Controller is not a court. He is an officer persona designata, specially authorised to adjudicate upon disputes relating to urban property concerning ejectment and determination of fair rent of urban properties. The provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The provisions of the Act are substantially the same as the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act)".

That being the position in law, the Controller could not have dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation but was competent to consider if there is inordinate delay and laches.

There is another factor which had been highlighted. The Rent Controller had went on to record that there is no authenticated proof of the petitioner having been involved in an accident. When the facts are in controversy, in all fairness, the Rent Controller should have recorded the evidence and thereupon base the findings on it. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Rent Controller will frame the issues and re-examine the controversy in light of the findings recorded above. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on March 14, 2000.