Mangal Sain v. Ajit Parshad

Harnam Singh, J.:— Shri Ajit Parshad and Sagar Chand applied under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the ejectment of Mangal Sen respondent from the shop in dispute situated in the abadi of Purani Mandi, Sonepat, alleging that the applicants required the shop bona fide for their own use.

2. Mangal Sen respondent pleaded that the applicants were not residing at Sonepat, that be was in occupation of the shop in dispute as a lessee for the last fifty years and that the applicants did not require the shop in dispute for their own use. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller fixed the following issues:—

1. Whether the respondent paid or offerred to pay the rent as and when it fell due?

2. Whether the petitioners needed the premises for their owe use?

3. Relief.

3. On issue No. 1 the Rent Controller found that the respondent paid the rent as and when it fell due. On issue No. 2 the Rent Controller found that the applicants required the shop bona fide fat their own use. On the findings set out above the Rent Controller granted the petitioners a decree for the ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute together with costs.

4. From the order passed by the Rent Controller Maugal Sen in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, went up appeal under section 15 of the Act at Rohtak. The appeal was, however, assigned by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak to the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak.

5. On the 11th of October, 1950, the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, dismissed the appeal with costs.

6. From the order passed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, Mangal Sen has come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Fakir Chand Mital, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, was not competent to near and dispose of the appeal. On this point counsel refers to section 15(1) of the Act and the Notification issued by the State Government under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of section 15 of the Act. The Notification reads:—

“Notification No. 1562-Cr. 47/9228—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to confer on all District and Sessions Judges in the Punjab in respect of the Urban areas in their respective existing jurisdiction, the powers of appellate authorities for the purpose of the said Act, with regard to orders made by Rent Controllers under section 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the said Act.”

8. In support of the objection Mr. Fakir Chand Mital cites Pitman Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons 52 P.L.R 1 , A.I.R 1950 E.P 181 (F.B). In that case Khosla, J. (Das, C.J and Kapur, J., concurring) said:—

“The Rent Controller and the Appellate authority appointed under Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947 do not constitute civil Courts subordinate to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, and therefore their orders are Dot subject to revision by the High Court.”

9. Basing himself on Pitman Shorthand Academy v. B. Lilaram & Sons 52 P.L.R 1 , A.I.R 1950 E.P 181 (F.B) Mr. Mital urges that a District and Sessions Judge acting under Notification No. 1562-Cr. 47/9228 does not act as Court in hearing appeals under section 15(4) of the Act but as a persona designata. Clearly, the jurisdiction that vested in the District and Sessions Judge did not vest in him as a Court, he had no jurisdiction under section 21(2) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1919 to assign civil appeal No. 31/14 of 1950 to the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak.

10. Following Pitman Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons 52 P.L.R 1 , A.I.R 1950 E.P 181 (F.B) I hold that the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal.

11. Finding that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal I hold that the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, at Rohtak, on the 11th of October, 1950, is a nullity and this Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is competent to set aside that order.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I allow the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, and remand the case to the appellate authority, namely, the District and Sessions Judge, for disposal. Costs to be costs in the appeal.

13. Petition allowed.