Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Section 13 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nasib Singh vs Om Prakash And Anr. on 23 October, 1978
Specific defence when set up by the tenant in the written statement would itself be an inbuilt protest for the simultaneous availing of the benefit of the proviso by making excess payment as held in Nasib Singh's case (AIR 1979 Punj & Har 96) (supra) by my learned brother M. R. Sharma, J. and logically for hopeful adjustment of the excess payment as conceived of by Mehar Singh C. J. in Dial Chand's case (1967-69 Punj LR 248) (supra). We are persuaded to come to this view, while applying general principles of the Civil P. C. to further the intendment of the law framers. One of the foremost considerations for the enactment of Rent Control Laws is restrictions on the quantum of rents. Permitting the landlord to take away the excess rent from the tenant frightened to make payment in order to avail of the benefit of the proviso and the Rent Controller wringing his hands that he could do nothing about it would, to our mind, be a fraud on the statute. S. 7 of the Act conceives of a situation where refund be necessary for excess payments of rent made by a tenant. We see no reason why a claim under S. 7 of the Act cannot be determined by the Rent Controller as a cross-claim under the Act simultaneously with the eviction petition. Such a course to our mind furthers the purposes of the Act rather than frustrate them.
Behari Lal vs Ajudhia Das on 26 September, 1969
11. On reconsideration of the entire case law on the subject as also from the light, which is forthcoming from the amendment made to the Civil P. C. it becomes crystal clear that in availing the provisions of the proviso to S 13(2)(i) of both the Acts aforementioned, the tenant does not lose the right of claiming an issue on the quantum of rent and a decision thereon from the Rent Controller in the proceedings for eviction. Such right of claim in respect of the cause of action having accrued to him on and during the pendency of the eviction application, his defence laid in the written statement will have the effect of a cross-claim. In the altered general principles of law, even if the landlord does not want to continue with the petition for eviction or gets it stayed or dismissed, the counter-claim can nevertheless be proceeded with as visualised under O.VIII Rs.60. Thus the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Behari Lal's case (1970 Ren CJ 671) (supra) which view seems to have been shared by S. P. Goyal, J. in the admitting order, that the question of rent has not any bearing in the petition for ejectment thereafter, cannot, with due respect to the learned Judges, be taken to be stating the principles now applicable.
1