- (1.) By rent note dated 10th July, 1958, Exhibit A-1, Inder Kumar Jain let out the shop in dispute to Durga Dass at a monthly rent of Rs. 16. By a separate agreement, the adjoining room was also let out by the same landlord to the same tenant. On 3rd August, 1971, two ejectment applications were filed by the landlord against his tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting to firm M/s. Durga Dass Ram Lal, which was being run solely by Ram Lal. The tenant and the firm through Ram Lal were impleaded as parties to the ejectment petitions. Since on the first date of hearing the arrears of rent along with costs and interest were paid, that ground ceased to exist and the petitions were tried on the ground of subletting. The Rent Controller dis missed the ejectment petitions which order was maintained by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur. The landlord has come up in Civil Revision No. 1021 of 1975 against the decision of the Courts below in respect of the shop in dispute and in Civil Revision No. 878 of 1975 against the decision in respect of the adjoining room.
(2.) Along with the ejectment petitions, the landlord filed separate applications for appointment of a local commissioner to inspect the premises and to find out as to who was in occupation of the same and who was carrying on business therein. The Rent Controller passed an ex-party order appointing Shri Rajinder Mohan, Advocate, as a Local Commissioner to do the needful. He visited both the premises on 6th August, 1971, and made separate reports dated 9th August, 1971, in respect of the two premises, which are Exhibit L.C./3 in each of the two files. The Local Commissioner also recorded the statements of Ram Lal and Madan Lal, who are brothers and are sons of Durga Dass tenant, separately, in respect of each of the premises and their statements in each of the files are exhibits L.C./1 and L.C. 2, respectively. Both the statements are signed by both these persons. The statement of Ram Lal is as follows : "M/s Durga Dass Ram Lal carries on business in this shop. I am the sole proprietor of this business my father Durga Dass carries on separate business in the name of Mahesh Dass Aggarwal in Gowshala Bazar, Hoshiarpur. Shri Durga Dass has absolutely no concern with the business concerned. I maintain no books of account and no income-tax is paid for the business concerned." The statement of Madan Lal is "as follows : "Shri Ram Lal is my younger brother and he has made the above statement in my presence." On the basis of the aforesaid statements, the local commissioner reported that Ram Lal alone was in occupation of the premises and was carrying on business in the name of M/s Durga Dass Ram Lal with which Durga Dass had no concern Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the report as also the statements of Ram Lal and Madan Lal cannot considered as evidence in the case as the local commissioner ins the spot without any notice to the opposite party and for this view of law placed reliance on Jamil Ahmed Taban and others V. Mst. Khair-Ul-Nisa and others, 1970 RCJ 695.
(3.) The decision of these revisions largely depends on the law point, whether the report of the local commissioner and the statements of Ram Lal and Madan Lal recorded by him can be considered to be legal evidence in the case, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), is a complete Code by itself and the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), by itself does not apply to the proceedings under the Act. The authorities under the Act can follow any reasonable procedure in trying the ejectment petitions and for that matter they can adopt the procedure provided under the Code. Order 26, rule 18 of the Code is in respect of appointment of local commissioners and about the admissibility of the reports made by them. Therefore similar procedure can be adopted by the authorities under the Act.;