Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Garg vs Parshotam Lal on 6 August, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3391 of 2008
Date of decision: 6th August, 2010
Naresh Garg
... Petitioner
Versus
Parshotam Lal
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner-landlord had instituted an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 14th February, 2008, ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved against the same, respondent-tenant filed an appeal. The appellate authority accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 14th February, 2008, whereby the Rent Controller had caused eviction of the tenant, on the ground that the Rent Controller had not determined the relationship of landlord-tenant, and remitted the matter to the Court of Rent Controller to decide this issue. It was observed by the appellate authority as under:
"14. Thus where the relationship is denied between the parties, the Rent Controller is not to assess the provisional rate of rent and if he so assesses, is not to pass an ejectment order without deciding the question whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the Civil Revision No.3391 of 2008 2 parties. Such the relationship between the parties is denied and therefore the ratio of Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case."
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
16. The contention that the order dated 14.12.2007 vide which provisional rate of rent was assessed was not challenged in revision and the same has become final is of no consequences as the Rent Controller was not competent to assess the rate of rent in view of the stand taken by the tenant and the ejectment order dated 14.02.2008 passed on the basis of the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned lower Court is to frame the issues and thereafter give the parties an opportunity to lead evidence and then to decide the controversy.
17. In result, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 14.02.2008 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide it afresh in view of the observations made above. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.500/-. The parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 24.04.2008. ... ... ..."
Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in 'Raghu Nath Jalota v. Romesh Duggal and another' 1979 (2) Rent Control Reporter 501 to contend that the appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has no jurisdiction to remand the case to Controller for entirely a fresh decision. It is submitted that the appellate authority can make only further enquiry, either by itself or through Controller. It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Raghu Nath Jalota's case (supra):
Civil Revision No.3391 of 2008 3
"9. In the aforesaid background, Mr.I.L. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be on firm ground in contending that the legislature had a clear-cut and purposeful rationals in excluding the power of remand and a decision afresh under Section 15(3) of the Act. it was pointed out that one of the major premises of the statute was to take away the rent jurisdiction from the ordinary gamut of Civil litigation and to put it in more expeditious and a quicker procedural remedy laid out under the Act and emancipate it from the limitations and technicalities of Civil Procedure. It was in line with this intent that the legislature again expressly chose the relatively speedier mode of disposal of appeals by providing that there could only be either an enquiry through the Controller or itself by the Appellate Authority in order to prevent the whole matter from being put back into the boiling pot of litigation by a remand of the whole case and its trial and decision afresh. It was highlighted that by its very nature the issues of eviction and others arising under the rent jurisdiction are urgent in nature calling for an expeditious final decision. The very purpose of the statute may indeed be frustrated if this jurisdiction is again bogged down into the quagmire of the ordinary civil process. It was, therefore, submitted with considerable plausibility that a reading of the power of remand and decision afresh in Section 15(3) with the consequential result of a rabrial and an appeal and revision therefrom would virtually reduce the expeditious procedure sought to be devised by the Act to the tardy process of the ordinary Civil suit from which it was sought to be liberated by special legislation.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
23. ... ... ... The plain language of Section 15(3) clearly provides both the alternatives in a wide ranging discretion to the Appellate Authority. He is entitled to make such further enquiry either himself or through the Controller. It is thus plain that in appropriate cases, if the Appellate Authority so desires, the matter can be sent to the Controller for the recording of further evidence and even the findings to Civil Revision No.3391 of 2008 4 be arrived at thereon. This procedure can obviously be closely analogous to the calling of a report from the trial Court under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the fear repeatedly expressed that the absence of the power of remand would inevitably and as a matter of law convert the Appellate Authority into a trial Court, in peculiar cases, appears to be not well founded. It would be wasteful to reiterate all the reasons given above and on their basis, there is no option, but to overrule the judgment on this point."
This view was further reiterated by a Single Bench of this Court in 'State Bank of Patiala at Yamunanagar v. Zulquadar Singh and others' 1993(2) Rent Control Reporter 470.
Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is modified to the extent that instead of remitting the matter to the Rent Controller, the appeal shall remain pending before the appellate authority, which shall frame an issue for determination of relationship of landlord-tenant and the Rent Controller shall only send a report on that issue after giving opportunities to the parties to lead evidence on the issues to be formulated by the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall frame issues, on which a report is to be sought from the Rent Controller, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Rent Controller shall make every effort to send his report within a period of three months thereafter. After receipt of the report, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions of law.
Counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 30th August, 2010. Till the appeal is decided, the tenant shall continue to deposit the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per month with the Rent Controller and as per the interim order dated 28th Civil Revision No.3391 of 2008 5 July, 2009 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the amount shall not be disbursed to any party, subject to final order to be passed by the appellate authority.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 6, 2010 rps