Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rama Sharma vs Mehar Chand on 5 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)137PLR191
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
ORDER Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner-landlord is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in appeal on the ground that the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment petition.
2. The petitioner sought ejectment of respondent from House No. 2183/1, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was alleged that the respondent was inducted as a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 850/- excluding water and electricity charges. However, the respondent has failed to make the payment of the rent since September, 1994.
3. The learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition after holding that the rate of rent is Rs. 850/- per month and that the tenant has not tendered the arrears of rent. However, the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted on the ground that the petitioner herein is an allottee of the flat by the Chandigarh Housing Board and, thus, the learned Rent Controller is barred to exercise the jurisdiction to pass any eviction order in terms of Section 4 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 as extended to Union Territory, Chandigarh. The learned Appellate Authority relying upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Damyanti Bhalla and Anr. v. Pritpal Singla, Civil Revision No. 2116 of 1998, decided on 1.12.1998, has returned a finding that the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, as extended to Union Territory, Chandigarh.
4. The correctness of judgment of learned Single Judge in Dayyanti Bhalla's case (supra) was examined by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kashyap v. Smt. Mohini Nijhawan, Civil Revision No. 5474 of 2001, decided on 18.12.2003. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Damyanti Bhalla's case (supra) is not correct law. It was held to the following effect: -
"Before parting with this judgment we may also notice the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Civil Revision No. 3479 of 1998, decided on March 2, 2000 titled as Jagjit Singh v. Smt. Rajinder Dhanda. In the aforementioned case, the learned Single Judge has distinguished his own judgment in Damyanti Bhalla's case on the ground that since the entire sale amount has been paid by the allottee to the Chandigarh Housing Board, therefore, the provisions of the Rent Act would apply. The correctness of the aforesaid judgment in Jagjit Singh's case (supra) has also been doubted in Civil Revision No. 5474 of 2001 and the aforesaid matter has also been referred to the larger Bench. The view we have taken while interpreting the provisions of Section 4 of the Housing Board Act necessarily means that the law laid down in Damyanti Bhalla's (supra) is not the correct law and as such the reference made in Civil Revision No. 5474 of 2001 is not required to be answered, having been rendered infructuous".
5. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority that the ejectment petition is not maintainable cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. The case is remitted to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law expeditiously.