MOLAR MAL Vs. SHYAM MANOHAR LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals (Second Appeal from Orders Nos. 181 -D of 1963, 197 -D of 1960 and 11 -D of 1964) which are connected.

(2.) MOLAR Mal, who is the appellant in Second Appeal from Order No. 181 -D of 1963 created a mortgage in favour of Shyam Manohar Lal respondent. On the basis of that mortgage the respondent obtained a decree and the property in dispute was put to sale and after obtaining permission of the Court, it was purchased at a court auction by the respondent on 6th August 1959. The sale was confirmed on 11th December 1961 and the sale certificate was granted on 20th December 1961. On 24th July 1962 three applications for eviction were filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of the tenants on the ground of non -payment of rent, it having been alleged that notices of demand had been served on them in accordance with law. In the eviction application filed against Molar Mal appellant and Prag Dass, it was stated against column 3(b), according to which the name and address of the tenant or tenants have to be given, that Prag Dass and Molar Mal were the tenants. In the relief, which has been claimed in this petition it is stated -

(3.) THE first contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that no appeal lay to the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of the Rent Controller in view of my decision in Balwanl Singh v. Sant Ram S.A.O. No. 2 -D of 196 (Second Appeal from Order No. 2 -D of 1961) decided on 9th January 1964. In that case the position was wholly different inasmuch as the Rent Controller had given a decision on a preliminary issue that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the question was whether that order was appealable. The eviction application had not been finally disposed of and an appeal had been taken to the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of the preliminary issue. In the present cases the position is altogether different inasmuch as the Rent Controller disposed of the eviction applications and not merely decided a preliminary issue, namely, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. If the eviction applications were disposed of, surely an appeal could be taken against that and it could be urged in those appeals that the decision of the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties was erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellants relies on my observations in the other case that whether a question arises in proceedings before the Rent Controller whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, the order disposing of that issue is not one which is made under any of the provisions of the Act and that matter has to be decided for settling whether the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the application either for fixation of standard rent or for eviction, as the case may be, but in the present cases the order which is being appealed against, as has already been stated before, is one under the Act, namely, dismissal of the eviction applications. My previous decision, therefore, can be of no avail to the present appellants.