MANGAL SAIN Vs. AJIT PARSHAD AND ANR.
LAWS(P&H)-1950-11-17
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 23,1950

MANGAL SAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Ajit Parshad And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Harnam Singh, J. - (1.) SHRI Ajit Parshad and Sagar Chand applied under Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the ejectment of Mangal Sen resp. from the shop in dispute situated in the 'abadi' of Purani Mandi, Sonepat, alleging that the applicants required the shop 'bona fide' for their own use. Mangal Sen resp. pleaded that the applicants were not residing at Sonepat, that he was in occupation of the shop in dispute as a lessee for the last fifty years and that the applicants did not require the shop dispute for their own use. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller fixed the following issues: (1) Whether the resp. paid or offered to pay the rent as and when it fell due? (2) Whether the Petitioners needed the premises for their own use? (3) Relief. On issue No. 1 the Rent Controller found that the resp. paid the rent as and when it fell due. On issue No. 2 the Rent Controller found that the applicants required the shop 'bona fide' for own use. On the findings set out above the Rent Controller granted the Petitioners a decree for the ejectment of the resp. from the shop in dispute together with costs.
(2.) FROM the order passed by the Rent Controller Mangal Sen went up in appeal under Section 15 of the Act in the Court of the District and Session Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak. The appeal was, however, assigned by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak to the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak. On 11 -10 -1950, the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, dismissed the appeal with costs. From the order passed In appeal by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, Mangal Sen has come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Fakir Chand Mital, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urges that the Additional Diet and Session Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, was not competent to hear and dispose of the appeal. On this point counsel refers to Section 15(1) of the Act and the Notification issued by the State Govt. under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. The Notification reads: Notification No. 1562 -Cr. 47/9228 - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15(1)(a), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to confer on all 'District and Sessions Judges in the Punjab in respect of the Urban areas in their' respective existing jurisdiction, the powers of appellate authorities for the purpose of the said Act, with regard to orders made by Rent Controllers under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the said Act. In support of the objection Mr. Fakir Chand Mital cites 'Pritam Shorthand Academy v. B. Lilaram and Sons', AIR 1950 EP 181 :, 52 PLR 1 FB. In that case Khosla, J. (Das C.J. and Kapur J., concurring) said: The Rent Controller and the Appellate authority appointed under Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, do not constitute civil Courts subordinate to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, and therefore their orders are not subject to revision by the High Court. Basing himself on 'Pritam Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram and Sons', AIR 1950 EP 181 :, 52 PLR 1 FB. Mr. Mital argues that a District and Session Judge acting under Notification No. 1562 -Cr. 47/9228 does not act as a Court in hearing appeals under Section 15(4) of the Act but as a 'persona designata'. Clearly, the jurisdiction that vested in the District and Session Judge did not vest in him as a Court and he had no jurisdiction under Section 21(2), Punjab Courts Act, 1918 to assign civil appeal No. 31/14 of 1950 to the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak. Following 'Pritam Shorthand Academy v. B. Lilaram and Sons', AIR 1950 EP 181 :, 52 PLR 1 FB. I hold that the additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal.
(3.) FINDING that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal I hold that the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, on 11 -10 -1950, is a nullity and this Court acting under Article 227, Constitution of India, is competent to set aside that order.;


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