Dewan Chand vs Sh. Darshan Lal and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated December 22, 1992 of the learned Rent Controller, Nabha whereby it was directed that the proceedings in eviction petition shall remain stayed till the question of title was decided by the civil court.

Dewan Chand filed a petition seeking ejectment of the respondents from the house in question on the allegations that he purchased the house from the original owner vide registered sale deed dated July 23, 1977 and that respondents 1 and 2 were the tenants under the original owner. The alleged tenants filed reply. They took a stand that they were the owners of the house in question. Mohinder Paul, respondent No. 2 appeared as RW-4 in the eviction petition and stated that the house in question was their ancestral property which was once owned by Kishori Lal, uncle of his grant-father.

Petitioner as also the respondents concluded their evidence and the eviction petition was at the stage of final arguments when the order under revision was passed by the learned Rent Controller saying that there existed a dispute about the question of title between the parties and that the eviction petition shall remain stayed till the question of title is decided by the civil court. It is in these circumstances, the landlord has filed this revision challenging the order of the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and set up a title in themselves, nevertheless the Rent Controller ought to have decided the eviction petition and it could not stay the proceedings in the eviction petition and direct the parties to get the question of title decided from the civil court at the first instance. According to the learned counsel, petition for eviction would have succeeded if the Rent Controller had found that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the said petition would have failed in case it was found otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of bis contention placed reliance on Muni Lal v. Chandu Lal (1968) 70 PLR 473, Ambala Bus Syndicate (P). Ltd. v. Indra Motors Kurali? (1968) 70 PLR 960, Kharaiti Ram Bansi Lal Vs. Shmt. Radha Rani and Another, and Joint Hindu Family firm known as Ved Parkash and Sons v. Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha 1977 (2) RLR 830.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel. In Muni Lal''s case (supra), it was held that the Rent Controller as also the appellate authority have the jurisdiction to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not and where the authorities finally decided that such relationship did not exist between the parties, Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act created a statutory bar to the jurisdiction of an ordinary Civil Court to re-adjudicate upon the question which had already been decided by the authorities under the aforesaid Act.

In Ambala Bus Syndicate (P). Ltd''s case (supra), it was held that where there was a dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller has to decide the question whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that it was the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to decide such a question. Where the Rent Controller makes an order on such a question, that order is made finally by the statute, of which the obvious consequence is that such a final order is not open to question in any proceedings in any other forum outside the statute including an ordinary Civil Court. It was further held that provisions of Section 15 of the Act clearly imply ouster of jurisdiction of ordinary civil court on all matters and questions which the Rent Controller has to decide by his order, which is final subject only to the decision of the Appellate Authority or the revisional authority. From the said judgment, it is clearly discernible that the matters to which finality is attached to the order of Rent Controller, cannot be agitated in civil suit. The only question in the present case is whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the decision of such question is within the domain of the Rent Controller.

In Messrs. Kharati Ram Bansi Lal''s case (supra), it was held that the Rent Controller is not debarred from determining the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent when the petitioner seeks eviction of the respondent u/s 13 of the aforesaid Act, and the respondent specifically denies the relationship either by setting a title in himself or otherwise denies the title of the landlord. It was held that mere fact tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant will not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to determine that question.

In Joint Hindu Family firm known as Ved Parkash and Sons''s case (supra), it was held that once the Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties he need not give any finding on other issues as such a finding would be redundant. In other words, it was held that it is the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

A reading of the order under revision clearly goes to show that the Rent Controller refused to determine the question, whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, only by observing that the question of title be first got decided from the civil court. In my view, the Rent Controller acted illegally and with material irregularity in directing the parties to get the question of title decided first from the civil court. It was for the Rent Controller to examine the relevant evidence produced and record a finding, whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If he had come to the conclusion that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he was to dispose of the eviction petition according to law by recording a finding whether there existed a ground for ordering eviction of the tenant or not. If, however, he had found that there did not exist such relationship, it was end of the matter and the eviction petition was bound to fail on that ground alone leaving it open to the parties to agitate the matter in appeal or revision and or get their title decided from the Civil Court. But the Rent Controller could not direct the parties to first get their title decided from the Civil Court and postpone the decision of the eviction petition till it was so done.

Learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the order of the Rent Controller by reference to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Messrs Kharati Ram Bansi Lal''s case (supra) to the effect that "if while deciding that question, the Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that he cannot decide the said question without determining the complicated question of title, he will in that event stay his hands". Learned counsel for the respondents cannot draw any assistance from these observations. It was held by the Division Bench that if the Rent Controller without deciding the complicated question of title can determine the sole question which falls within his jurisdiction, namely, whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he shall proceed to decide that question and would not be deterred by the fact that the tenant seeks to raise a complicated question of title. In the present case as already observed, the Rent Controller has nowhere stated in the impugned order that he was unable to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the evidence already led in the case, there being complicated dispute of question of title.

In view of what has been observed above, this revision as allowed and the order dated December 22, 1992 passed by the Rent Controller is set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the eviction petition in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on May 19, 1994. The Rent Controller is further directed to dispose of the eviction petition within one month of aforesaid date as, admittedly, the parties have already concluded their evidence and the petition is at the stage of final argument. There shall be no order as to costs.