Decided on November 24,1952

Nandu Ram Appellant
Jagannath Parshotam Das Respondents


C.C.CHOWDHRY,J. - (1.) THESE are applications in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings in two cases instituted by the applicant Nandu Ram as landlord under Section 13 2. i. of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949., one against Jagannath Parshotam Das, & the other against Hansraj Manoharlal, for their eviction from the shops occupied by them on the ground of non payment of rents respectively due by them. Both the applications can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) THE landlord's application was dismissed by the Controller, and so was his appeal by the District Judge as appellate authority under Section 15 of the Act in both the cases. The District Judge agreed with the Controller that there was 'no non payment of rent' as contemplated by Section 13 of the Act. In the course of his judgment, he also observed that in view of certain observations of this Court in Lalla Ram v. Naresh Chand', AIR 1952 Him P & B 28, the question of the date from which the order of the Controller fixing fair rent became operative could only be determined in a suit in respect of rent. There are certain facts with regard to which there is no difference between the parties. Both the tenancies were on an annual basis, the rent payable by the former being Rs. 306/ and that by the latter Rs. 150/ . Rs. 200/ were paid by the one and Rs. 93/2/ by the other as rents in advance. Applications for eviction were filed in both the cases on 26 6 1951. Prior to that, however, i.e., on 25 9 1950, the Controller had fixed Rs. 120/ per annum in one case and Rs. 42/ per annum in the other as fair rents on foot of applications filed on 29 10 1949 by the respective tenants under Section 4 of the Act. After the disposal of these fixation of fair rent cases, but before the institution of the two applications for eviction, each of the two tenants remitted to the landlord by money orders on 25 11 1960 sums which had been fixed as fair rents in their respective cases, i.e., Rs. 120/ and Rs. 42/ , but the landlord refused to accept the payments. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that rents at fair rates were calculable only from the date of the tenant's applications under Section 4 of the Act, that before that the tenants were liable for rent at the contract rates, and that on this basis of calculation both the tenants were in arrears and therefore liable to eviction. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the tenants, that rents were calculable throughout at the fair rates, since once fair rents had been fixed under Section 4 the landlord was debarred from claiming it at a higher rate.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents took the preliminary objection that, in view of the concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below that there was no non payment of rent on the part of the tenants, these are not fit cases in which this Court should exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued on the basis of: 'Bawa Singh v. Kundal Lal', 54 Pun L R 358, ' Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers', AIR 1951 S C 115, 'Narendra Nath v. Binode Behari', AIR 1951 Cal 138 and ' Pushpa Devi v. Kanshi Ram Nand Kishore', AIR 1951 Him P 72, that this was a fit case for the exercise of the said power because the District Judge had refused to exercise a jurisdiction which did vest in him by erroneously holding that the question as to the date from which fair rent fixed by the Controller became operative could not be determined in the proceedings before him but only by a separate suit.;

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