Pt. Balmukand Gurroo vs Baba Ragunath Das Ji Achry and another

Falshaw, C.J.

1.This is a revision petition filed by a Defendant Balmukand Guroo challenging an order of the lower Court holding a suit instituted by Bawa Raghunath Das Ji Respondent to be maintainable.

The relevant facts are that in March 1959 the Petitioner filed an application u/s 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 for the ejectment of Gopal Narain from the premises in suit on the ground of non-payment of rent. Gopal Narain denied that he was the tenant of the Petitioner, claiming that his landlord was Bawa Raghunath Das Ji. The latter was subsequently joined as a party and the only contest which followed was between Balmukand Guroo and Bawa Raghunath Dass Ji as to which of them was entitled to receive the amount deposited in the Court by the tenant. It appears that there is serious dispute between these two regarding the ownership of the house which Bawa Raghunath Ji claims on the basis of a gift in his favour by the mother of Balmukand Guroo made as long ago as 1940, while the position of Balmukand Guroo is that the house belonged to his father and that his mother had no power to make the gift.

The contest regarding which of them was entitled to the rent lying in Court was decided by the Rent Controller in favour of Balmukand Guroo and the appeal of Bawa Raghunath Das Ji was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal which, however, held that the enquiry before a Rent Controller is only of a summary nature and referred to the provisions of Section 50(4) of the Act.

This decision was given on the 26th of May 1960 and within a few days Bawa Raghunath Das Ji instituted his suit claiming a declaration that Gopal Narain is the tenant of the Plaintiff and not of Balmukand Guroo, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to the amount deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller. The Defendant immediately raised the plea that the suit was not maintainable and it is the decision in the Plaintiffs favour on this point which is challenged in the present revision petition.

The Petitioner relies chiefly on the provisions of Section 43,- "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act every order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding",-and also the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 15,-"If, in any proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the Controller the amount payable by him under Sub-section. (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), as the case may be and in such a case no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Controller decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same."

It is clear, however, that the most important section is Section 50 which is headed "jurisdiction of Civil Court barred in respect of certain matters". Sub-section (1) on which the Petitioner also relies reads-

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil Court or other authority.

It will be noted that both in Section 43 and Sub-section (1) of Section 50 the words are used "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act", and it seems to me that there can be no doubt whatever that these words are included with the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 50 in mind. This Sub-section reads-

Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing a civil Court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.

In view of these provisions I fail to see how it can possibly be said that the present suit is not maintainable since it concerns both the questions of ownership of the house in dispute and the right to receive rent from the tenant. Reading all the provisions which I have set out above together it seems quite clear that the object of them is that although the Rent Controller is called on to decide u/s 15(4) to which of the contesting parties money deposited by tenant in his Court on account of rent is to be paid, this decision is only to be regarded as tentative and subject to the final determination of the rights of the parties in a suit the filing of which is permitted by Section 50(4) of the Act.

Some attempt was made to argue on behalf of the Petitioner that the suit did not lie for a declaration regarding the money described as lying in the Court of the Rent Controller since it had already been withdrawn by Balmukand Guroo, but this point was not raised before the lower Court and it appears to be a matter of controversy into which the lower Court will have to go whether this money, if it has in fact been withdrawn, was withdrawn in contravention of an injunction. At present I do not feel it is necessary for me to decide any more than that the suit is maintainable and I accordingly dismiss the revision petition and have directed the parties to appear in the lower Court on the 25th of February 1963. There will be ho(sic) order as to costs.