SURINDER KUMAR Vs. BHAGWAN DASS NASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are the four petitions preferred under Article 227of the Constitution of India impugning the common order passed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT ) dated 13.5.2005. Learned ARCT had endorsed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 14.5.2003.

(2.) FACTS as emanating are as follows:

(3.) THE aforenoted petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution have now been preferred impugning the order of the RCT. THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings before the Rent Controller can be entertained only once it is agreed between the parties that there does exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; this was a disputed factum; contention of the tenant is that after the death of Nanak Singh although Gurmeet Kaur had put forth herself as the sole legal heir of Nanak Singh yet this was not correct and the other legal heirs whose affidavits had been filed on record had not been proved in accordance with law; they had not come into witness box; the title of Gurmeet Kaur was under a cloud; her subsequent sale of this property in favour of Bhagwan Dass Nasa was thus a void transaction; the tenant did not recognize either Gurmeet Kaur or Bhagwan Dass Nasa as his landlord; these being disputed questions of fact, they could not be decided by the ARC; they could only be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court. To support this submission learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in V(2004) SLT 187 Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Rajpal and Anr. Reliance has also been placed upon 1998 X AD(SC0 105 Satish Kumar Grover Vs. Surinder Kumar Grover; as also another judgment reported in AIR 1982 (SC) 1213 Devi Das Vs. Mohan Lal; for the same proposition reliance has also been placed upon 2005 1 AC(Delhi) 83 MCD Vs. Harish Chander and Ors. Submission is that where the original landlord has died, and there is a dispute about the title of the next new landlord, this dispute cannot be adjudicated upon by the ARC; the Civil Court alone could have decided this; ARC delving into this controversy has committed an illegality; this finding has been upheld by the RCT which finding being illegal is liable to be set aside.