Dhani Ram and others vs Mahavir Jain Shoe Store Khanna

S.P. Goyal, J.—This revision petition u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Thereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Samrala dated June 2, 1981, granting sanction for the institution of a complaint u/s 19 of the Act.

The respondent filed an application for permission to prosecute three petitioners, Dhani Ram (since dead). Gian Chand Loomba and Hari Chand his two sons for contravention of the provisions of section 10 (1) of the Act. It was alleged that Dhani Ram with the aid of the other two petitioners had intentionally damaged a portion of the roof of the shop on lease with him and thereby interfered with the amenities enjoved by him as a tenant without any reasonable or sufficient cause. The application was opposed by the petitioners who denied the allegations and pleaded that their petition for ejectment of the respondent u/s 13 of the Act was pending in the Court of the other Rent Controller at Samrala and the Court in which the application was filed was not competent to take its cognizance. Surprisingly the Rent Controller framed a number of issues and after recording evidence of the parties wrote 15 page order to grant the permission.

It is admitted between the parties that the application filed by the tenant u/s 10 of the Act for restoration of the alleged amenities was also pending in the Court of the same Rent Controller in which the proceedings u/s 13 were pending. It was therefore, highly improper for another Rent Controller at the same station to take cognizance of the application u/s 19 of the Act. As a matter of fact this application would only have been competent after the application u/s 10 filed by the tenant was decided or at best both could be disposed of simultaneously by this improper course adopted by the trial Court, two conflicting judgments have come into being as the application of the tenant u/s 10 has been dismissed. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone. However, it is urged that the anneal filed by the tenant against the order dismissing his application is still pending. Even if it be so that would hardly be of any consequence because as and when that application is allowed, the tenant may move before the same Rent Controller an application u/s 19 of the Act, if so advised.

The impugned order was also challenged on the ground that Dhani Ram has since died and no sanction for institution of a complaint could be granted against persons other than the landlord. The Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that the word, "any persons" in section 19 has been designedly used in comparison to the word, "landlord" used in section 10 of the Act. I do not propose to record any considered opinion in this regard, but prima facie it appears that the word "any person" in section 19 has been used because it covers the contravention u/s 11 as well which can be committed both by the landlord or the tenant and not to confer jurisdiction on the Rent Controller even respecting the third parties because whole of the Act deals with certain rights and liabilities between a landlord and a tenant only and any dispute between a landlord or a tenant and a third person is wholly outside its purview. But, without expressing any considered opinion on this matter, the impugned order is set aside on the first ground alone and the petition allowed with costs.