Rajinder Kumar vs Wazir Singh

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—The respondnt landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.

The Rent Controler ordered the eviction. The tenant filed an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that the landlord had committed an offence u/s 209 IPC by taking a stand the rent had not been paid, which had already been paid. The landlord admitted the excess payment of rent and he stated that the same was on account of inadvertent mistake and he had no objection to the adjustment of excess payment of rent. The Rent Controller held that the statement of the landlord that rent for two months had not been paid was deliberately false and therefore, granted sanction under the provisions of the Rent Act to the tenant to file prosecution against the landlord. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed as time barred. Hence this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of granting sanction for prosecution, the Rent Controller ought to have itself filed a complaint. Reliance is placed on Sheo Narain v. Smt. Megh Mala Jain (1977)79 P.L.R. 157 (F.B.); Smt. Malan Devi v. Piara Lal and Anr. 1978(1) All R C J 283 and Smt. Vidya Devi v. Firm Madan Lal Prem Kumar 1971 C L J 141.

In Sheo Narain''s case (supra), it was observed that violation of provisions of the Rent Act makes a person liable for prosecution u/s 19 of the Act. There is no dispute with this proposition. In Malan Devis''s case (supra), it was held that the Rent Controller is a Court within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute wit(tm) this proposition also, but it does not mean that in every case, the Court must file complaint.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed.