- (1.) DAULAT Ram, appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated the 7th November, 1975, passed by Shri H. L. Randev, Additional District Judge, Barnala, exercising the powers of appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, who has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, for launching prosecution against the respondents for offences under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code.
(2.) DAULAT Ram, appellant, had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) against Girdhari Lal, respondent, for his eviction from House No. 4607, situated at Barnala, which was occupied by Girdhari Lal, tenant-respondent. The main ground for eviction set up in the petition was that the tenant had not paid the rent. Girdhari Lal, tenant-respondent put in a written statement and stated therein that he had paid the rent amounting to Rs. 1980/- for the period from 1st of June, 1971 to 30th of May, 1976. In order to support his case, he produced a receipt purported to have been issued by Daulat Ram, appellant. He examined Bharpur Singh to substantiate his claim. He made his own statement also. The learned Rent Controller did not accept the version set up by Girdhari Lal, respondent. He came to the conclusion that the receipt produced by Girdhari Lal was a forged and fictitious document and that Girdhari Lal and Bharpur Singh, respondents had made false statements before him. He allowed the application filed by Daulat Ram, petitioner-appellant, and ordered eviction of Girdhari Lal, tenant-respondent. The appeal filed by the tenant-respondent was decided by Shri H. L. Randev, the appellate authority, who also upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Regarding the receipt and the evidence of the two witnesses Girdhari Lal and Bharpur Singh, he held that the receipt was a forged document and these witnesses have made false statements. Daulat Ram, petitioner-appellant, then moved an application under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that prosecution should be launched against Girdhari Lal and Bharpur Singh, respondents under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The notice of the application was given to the respondents, who appeared before the learned appellate Authority and raised two preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the application.
(3.) IT was argued that the Rent Controller while deciding the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act was not acting as a Court. It was only a Tribunal constituted under the Act and the same had not been declared to be a Court under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of Section 195 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. The second contention was that if the application was governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1808 (hereinafter called the old Code), the application will not be maintainable in view of Section 479-A (1) of the old Code, because then the prosecution could be launched against the respondents only after recording a finding envisaged by the provisions of Section 479-A of the old Code at the time of the delivery of the judgment and after giving opportunity to the respondents of being heard and it had not been done so in the present case. The learned appellate authority accepted both these contentions and dismissed the application. It held that the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority deciding cases under the Act are not Courts. It also held that if the application was treated under the old Code, even then it was liable to be dismissed as the procedure under Section 479-A of the old Code had not been followed.;