NATHU RAM Vs. RAM PARTAP
LAWS(P&H)-1950-12-18
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 07,1950

NATHU RAM Appellant
VERSUS
RAM PARTAP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kapur, J. - (1.) NATHU Ram, the Petitioner on 1 -8 -1948 made an Appellant for the ejectment of Ram Partap, his tenant. The matter was refd. to the Rent Controller as an arbitrator who gave an award on 4 -4 -1949. He allowed the ejectment and also put a condition that if and when the property was reconstructed the shop which had been taken from the tenant would be offered to him, but should the landlord want the shop for his own purpose the tenant would be entitled to get the shops B and C. An order was passed in terms of this award on the same day. The shop was re -erected but the landlord elected to take the shop himself, and it appears that he did not offer to the tenant, Ram Partap, the shops B and C which wore reconstructed. The tenant Ram Partap, then made an Appellant to the Rent Controller under Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Controller ordered the landlord to give possession of the shops BandCtothe tenant, Ram Partap, and also fixed the standard rent at Rs. 6 per mensem. Against this order an appeal was taken to the learned Dist. J. who affirmed the order. A revn. has been brought against this order to this Court and the rule was issued by my Lord, the Chief Justice, on 29 -9 -1850.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised that no revn. lies against this order, because the Dist. J. when he is sitting in appeal against order of a Controller, is not a Court and reliance is placed on a F.B. judgment of this Court. To that extent the objection is sustainable; but after the Constitution has come into force, this Court has been given the power of superintendence and interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, although the power will be exercised sparingly. This is one of those cases in which the power should be exercised because the Rent Controller and the Dist. J. have acted without any jurisdiction . Under Section 13(3)(a)(iii), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, it is provided that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of any building if be requires it for the re -erection of that building or for its replacement by another building, or for the erection of other buildings. Under Sub -section (4) of that section a landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under Sub -para (iii) of Para (a) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing the restoration of possession to him and the Controller shall make that order accordingly. In the present case no doubt the landlord got this building vacated on the ground that he wanted to rebuild it. He has rebuilt it. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that an Appellant can be made to the controller to put back in possession the tenant.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Respondent submits that what Ram Pratap, the tenant, has done is that lie has asked for execution of the decree which had been passed at the time which was that the landlord shall get possession of the building on the condition that after rebuilding he will allow to the tenant the choice of taking at least shops B and C. In the first place, this is not an Appellant for execution. It is merely an Appellant made under Section 3 for restoration of possession, and secondly after a building has been rebuilt it is not open, under the law, to the Controller to put the tenant back in possession. His power of restoring possession arises only hen the building has not been rebuilt. Such an order, as was passed in this case, may be enforce -able by other proceedings or may not be, put this not the proceeding which the tenant could take, nor did the Controller have any jurisdiction to entertain this is Appellant. In my opinion, the orders of the Controller and the Dist. J. are coram non judice and must therefore be set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.