Daya Krishan Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 461 -D and 462 -D of 1961. The point that requires determination in both these petitions is the same, it being whether a refund application by a tenant with regard to any excess payment made by him to the landlord is entertainable by the ordinary civil Courts or must be determined by the authorities constituted under the Rent Control Act.
(2.) THE contention of the tenant is that he paid certain amounts in excess of what was due from him to the landlord. The tenant is the same in both the cases, but the landlords are different. In C.R. 461 -D of 1961, the suit was for recovery of Rs. 135 paid in excess while in C.R. 462 -D of 1961, the suit was for recovery of Rs. 60 paid in excess. Objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts, for the suits were filed before the Judge, Small Cause Courts, Delhi. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is not ousted and in my view, he has grossly erred in this matter. He has totally ignored the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Sections 13 and 50 of the Act are in these terms: - 13. Where any sum or other consideration has been paid, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by or on behalf of a tenant to a landlord, in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the Controller may, on an application made to him within a period of one year from the date of such payment, order the landlord to refund such sum or the value of such consideration to the tenant or order adjustment of such sum or the value of such consideration against the rent payable by the tenant." "50. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered, by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil Court or other authority. and the combined reading of these provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the jurisdiction of civil Courts has been expressly taken away with regard to any payment made in excess by the tenant to the landlord. That being so, these petitions are allowed, the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Small Cause Courts is set aside. It will be open to the Plaintiff to pursue his remedy in accordance with law in the proper tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.;