Gurcharan Singh vs Madan Lal

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This is a rule directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantonment, who on 20th of January, 1968, declined to stay proceedings in the ejectment application before him. The petitioner Gurcharan Singh has been a tenant of the suit Premises, house No. 4264/2, Hill Road, Ambala Cantonment, for many years. At first, the petitioner was a tenant of a Muslim owner and after his migration to Pakistan became a lessee of the Custodian. In course of time, house No. 4264/2 came to be transferred to one Chuni Lal. There was an agreement of sale with regards to this property executed on 17th of August, 1935 between the petitioner and Chuni Lal. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 5,400, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement. The balance of Rs. 3,400 was to be paid before the Registrar at the time of registration. It may be mentioned that the sale deed had to be executed within two years of the execution of the agreement of sale. Further, it was stipulated that the petitioner was not to pay any rent to Chuni Lal till execution of the sale deed was completed within two years.

Chuni Lal sold the house on 3rd of March, 1966, to respondent Madan Lal, the ostensible price being Rs. 5,200/-, though it is stated at the Bar that the actual price paid was much higher than this figure.

After the sale deed was executed, Gurcharan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of his own contract with Chuni Lal. That suit is still pending. To obtain speedy possession of the suit property, Madan Lal filed proceedings for ejectment of the petitioner under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act), the ground being non-payment of rent. In that application for ejectment issues have been framed and one of the substantial questions for adjudication is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Respondent Madan Lal, without waiting for the result of that ejectment application, filed a similar application on 2nd of December, 1967, on the same ground, namely, non-payment of arrears of rent, the only difference being that the first ejectment application is pending before Shri Narinder Singh Sawraj, while the second application was placed for disposal before Shri Hari Ram, also a Rent Controller. The petitioner in his written statement prayed for stay of the second application on the ground that it involved in substance adjudication of the same dispute which had been raised in the first application, the application for stay purports to be u/s 10 of CPC which says-

No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties.

This application has been dismissed by Shri Hari Ram, Rent Controller, on 20th of January, 1968, and the tenant-petitioner has sought the aid of this Court in the exercise of its revisonal jurisdiction.

Plainly, the second application for ejectment, whose stay was sought by the petitioner, is to cause harassment to the tenant. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed this application on the ground, firstly, that the disputed question is not the same in the two applications for ejectment and, secondly, that the powers of stay have to be used sparingly. Neither of these reasons is tenable and the view taken by the Rent Controller not only shocks one''s sense of justice but shows an utter ignorance of the elementary principles of law. The point to be determined in the first application pending before Shri Sawraj is really the same which is involved in the application which was filed before Shri Hari Ram. In both the applications the question to be determined is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and further if any ejectment is called for on the ground that arrears of rent remain unpaid. It may be that the period in respect of which rent had not been paid is different in the two applications, but this does not mean that the substantial question of dispute between the parties is any different.

The Learned Counsel for the respondent has not attempted to justify the order of the Kent Controller on merits but has contended that no petition for revision lies under the provisions of sub section (5) of section 15 of the Act which says-

(5) The High Court may, at any time on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.

It is submitted by the respondent''s counsel that an appeal lies to the appellate authority under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 and the remedy not having been availed of, the petitioner has now precluded himself from filing a revision under sub-section (5) of section 15. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 reads thus-

(1) (a). The State Government may, by a general or special order, by notification confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

The notification conferring such powers is No. 1562-Cr-47/9228, dated 1st April, 1947, to this effect -

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to confer on all District and Sessions Judges in the Punjab in respect of the urban areas in their respective existing jurisdiction, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purposes of the said Act, with regard to orders made by Rent Controllers under sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the said Act.

Section 4 deals with the determination of fair rent. Section 10 lays an embargo on the landlord to interfere with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. Section 12 empowers the Controller to make an order for necessary repairs on the failure of the landlord to do so, while section 13 deals with the eviction of tenants. Manifestly, the order which is sought to be assailed in revision proceedings has not been passed under the provisions of sections 4, 10, 12 or 13 of the Act. The objection, therefore, that the revision is incompetent, is utterly without substance and cannot be sustained.

This petition for revision must be allowed and the order of the Rent Controller passed on 20th of January, 1968, quashed. The Learned Counsel for the respondent has suggested that the second application for ejectment may also be sent for disposal to Shri Narinder Singh Sawraj before whom the first application is pending. This request appears to be reasonable and I would direct that Shri Sawraj should dispose of both the applications in accordance with law.

The petitioner will get the costs of this petition. The counsel for the parties have been directed to cause their clients to appear before Shri Sawraj on the next date of hearing fixed in the first application and thereafter the Rent Controller will proceed to dispose of both the applications together.