- (1.) By this common order, I shall be disposing of two revision petitions, namely CR No. 2105 of 2009 titled as 'Mulkh Raj and Ors. v. Nisha Jain and Ors.' and CR No. 2106 of 2009 titled as 'Mulkh Raj v. Nisha Jain and Anr.' as the same facts and question of law are involved in these revision petitions.
(2.) These revisions petitions are directed against the orders dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which applications filed by the tenants for dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground that it is not maintainable, has been dismissed. For convenience, the facts are being extracted from CR No. 2105 of 2009. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act". in respect of booth No. 49, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, which was allegedly rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- vide rent note dated 02.12.1982, on the grounds that the tenant has not paid the rent since 01.06.1990, has sublet the demised premises, -changed the user and caused material additions and alterations without permission. In reply, it was admitted that the demised premises was let out to Petitioner No. 1 on 02.12.1982 at the monthly rent of Rs. 600/-, but subsequently it was given on rent to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 at the monthly rent of Rs. 800/- vide rent note dated 04.05.1988 and as such, they are the direct tenants. It was also alleged that the landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition exactly on the same grounds which was dismissed on 27.11.1998 by the learned Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 14:11.2002. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 04.04.2007: 1. Whether the Respondent No. 1 is liable to be evicted from the demised premises due to nonpayment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.06.1990 onwards ? OPP. 2. Whether Respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to Respondents No. 2 and 3 and thus is liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting ? OPP. 3. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?OPR. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable ?OPR. 5. Relief.
(3.) During the pendency of the petition, tenant filed an application for dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground that in the similar petition earlier filed by the landlord, one of the issues was that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which was decided against the landlord and had become final between the parties, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable for want of relationship as the earlier finding would operate as res judicata. Reply to the application was filed in which preliminary objection was raised that the matter regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is the subject matter of the present petition, hence the application is liable to be dismissed. This application has been decided by the learned Rent Controller by the impugned order on the ground that the petition was filed in the year 2002 in which issues were framed on 04.04.2007, the case is at the stage of evidence of the Petitioner/landlord and the issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is yet to be decided on the basis of evidence, therefore, it was not the stage to file the application.;