Ishwar Chander Latka vs Ram Chander

Prem Chand Pandit, J.—The short question of law for decision in this case is whether a case pending before one Rent Controller can be transferred to another Rent Controller in the same district.

The Petitioner in this case filed an application before the learned Rent Controller, Kaithal, for the eviction of the Respondent from a house situate in Kaithal. During the pendency of this case, the Petitioner has moved this Court for its transfer to some other district. His allegations, which have been pressed before me, are that the Petitioner had filed 52 separate suits, besides the present application for eviction, in the Court of this Rent Controller, who is also exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge at Kaithal; that the Petitioner had incurred the displeasure of Shri Ved Parkash Aggarwal, the predecessor of this Rent Controller, and had made a complaint against him to the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Tek Chand and due to this fact the Rent Controller said in open Court that he would teach the Petitioner a lesson for making complaints against the officers of the district, particularly, his predecessor, Shri Ved Parkash Aggarwal; that thereupon the Petitioner sought an interview with the Chief Justice at Delhi and brought to his notice the partisan-type attitude of the Rent Controller and later on he also submitted a written complaint making serious allegations of partiality, etc., against the Rent Controller; that, while acting as a Subordinate Judge, the Rent Controller dismissed 49 suits of the Petitioner on a technical ground; and that due to all these circumstances the Petitioner had a reasonable apprehension that he would not get a fair and impartial trial in the Court of the Rent Controller, All these allegations have been made in an affidavit and in such circumstances it is desirable that the case should be tried by some other Rent Controller.

It may be mentioned that during the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case should be transferred to the Rent Controller at Karnal in the same district as the case could not be transferred to some other district. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, contended that, under the law, a case could not be transferred from one Rent Controller to another Rent Controller, even though he may be in the same district.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case can be transferred to the Rent Controller at Karnal. Sub-sections (b) and (j) of Section 2 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are as under:

(b) ''Controller'' means any person who is appointed by the State Government to perform the functions of a Controller under this Act;

(j) ''urban area'' means any area administered by a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town committee or a notified area committee or any area declared by the State Government by notification to be urban for the purpose of this Act.

The following notification has been issued by the Punjab Government whereby powers of a Rent Controller under the Act have been conferred on various Subordinate Judges in the State:

No. 1562-Cr. 47/9224 (dated 14th April, 1947). In pursuance of the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947. the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to appoint all 1st Class Subordinate Judges in the Punjab to perform the functions of the Controllers under the said Act, in the urban area within the limits of their existing civil jurisdiction.

Kaithal town, where the house in dispute is situate, being an area administered by a municipal committee, is an urban area as defined in Section 2(j) mentioned above. The subordinate Judge at Kaithal has the civil jurisdiction within the limits of Kaithal tehsil, while the Subordinate Judge at Karnal has civil jurisdiction in the entire district of Karnal. By virtue of this notification, the Subordinate Judge at Kaithal will be performing the functions of a Rent Controller only in the urban area in the Kaithal tehsil, while the Subordinate Judge at Karnal can act as a Rent Controller in the urban area in the entire district of Karnal. It follows, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge at Karnal can try this case.

In view of what I have said above, I would accept this petition and direct that this case should be transferred to the Rent Controller at Karnal, who will dispose it of in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.