SANTOSH VAID Vs. UTTAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM (M) 48/2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred impugning the order dated 25 th October, 2010 of the Civil Judge dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners therein as barred by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Though technically speaking, a CM(M) Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against such dismissal of suit does not lie, the remedy of first appeal being available thereagainst, but notice thereof was issued. After notice the Learned Single Judge before whom the said CM(M) 48/2011 came up for hearing, being in doubt as to the correctness of the view taken by the another Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Pearey Lal Workshop Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran, 2008 155 DLT 145(Pearey Lal) and being of the view that the same required looking into by a Larger Bench, vide order dated 12 th May, 2011 referred the CM(M) Petition to a Larger Bench. That is how the same is before us.

(2.) RSA 116/2011 has been preferred impugning the judgment dated 9 th April, 2010 of the Civil Judge rejecting the plaint in the suit preferred by the appellant as well as the judgment dated 4 th March, 2011 of the Learned Additional District Judge dismissing the first appeal preferred by the appellant. The said RSA 116/2011 came up for consideration before the same Learned Single Judge of this Court, who had made the reference aforesaid; finding the legal issue entailed therein to be the same as in CM(M) 48/2011, the said RSA 116/2011 was also directed to be listed before us.

(3.) Needless to mention, the reference to us is of the legal question. However since the reference order does not frame the said legal question, before framing the same, it is deemed expedient to set out the background facts.