DEEP CHAND Vs. JHANDOO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and quashing the order dated September 19, 1980 of the Third Additional Controller in the eviction case Jhandoo Singh v. Deep c hand. It has arisen in the following circumstances.

(2.) On January 8, 1973 Jhandoo Singh, respondent, filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent, he having failed to pay rent for the period from September 30, 1969 at Rs. 30.00 per month, in spite of the service of a notice of demand under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner in his written statement pleaded that he was not a tenant under him. The Additional Controller by order dated December 15, 1975 held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He directed the petitioner to deposit rent for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the eviction application at Rs. 30.00 per month within one month from the date of the order failing which the eviction order was deemed to have been passed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the eviction order and the Rent Control Tribunal stayed the operation subject to deposit of the arrears of rent as already directed by the Additional Controller. The amount deposited was directed not to be paid to the respondent and the Tribunal by order dated May 9, 1979 accepted the petitioner's appeal and remanded the case to the Third Additional Controller for decision after recording fresh evidence. The petitioner thereafter was allowed to amend the written statement pleading that the property in question was not governed by the Rent Act. The Third Additional Controller by order dated February 13, 1980 held that the premises were not governed by the Act and therefore the Controller under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction application. He dismissed the eviction application. The petitioner-tenant applied for the refund of rent deposited by him in pursuance of the various orders passed by the Third Additional Controller and the Rent Conttol Tribunal. The respondent in reply submitted that as the Additional Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction application, he had no jurisdiction to order refund of the rent deposited. The Third Additional Controller by the impugned order dated September 19, 1980 dismissed his application holding that he ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter.

(3.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner submits that he is entitled to the restitution of the amount of rent deposited by him. He says that he is entitled to the restitution as the order for deposit of rent is deemed to have been set aside or reversed by the final order dismissing the eviction application. The respondent in reply submits that the Controller has no jurisdiction to order the refund of the rent deposited as the eviction application itself did not lie in his court. The Central Government framed the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 56 of the Act. Rule 23 of the said Rules reads as under: