RAM NATH MONGA Vs. HEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.

(2.) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561 (A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called "the Code") for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with his brother Ram Chand filed an application under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter called "the Act") before the Controller urging that they were joint tenants with Hem Chand because their father Ishwari Parshad had been the original tenant for about thirty years. They prayed that the execution proceedings be stayed. The Controller refused the prayer and against his order dated the 21st of February, 1970 an appeal was preferred before the Rent Control Tribunal on the dismissal whereof this court was moved by filing S.A.O. No. 63 of 1970. Civil Miscellaneous Applications 573-J and 574-J of 1970 were moved therein praying that the execution proceedings pending before the Controller be stayed. Deshpande, J. made an order on the 29th of April, 1970, staying appellant's dispossession from the property till the 7th of May, 1970. When the matter again came up on 7th of May, 1970, he passed the following order:-

(3.) The petitioner before us has admitted his presence in court on 7th of May, 1970, but has averred that he did not hear the order extending the stay. The execution proceedings were taken up by the Additional Controller on the 8th of May, 1970, when respondent No. 1 contended that the High Court had passed the order staying them. The petitioner thereupon filed an affidavit wherein while referring to the proceedings before the High Court on 7th of May, 1970, he asserted:-