BEOPARI BENEFIT CHIT FUND CO Vs. GANPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision is whether a suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the contractual rate should be stayed during the pendency of a petition for fixation of standard rent filed by the tenant before the Controller. The revision came up for hearing before one of us who, in view of an authority of this Court in Malik Girdhari Lal vs. Parshotam Dass, Civil Revision No. 416-D of 1965 decided by Tatachari, J. on 28th of May, 1971(1) has referred it to a Division Bench.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the petitioners in this revision are tenants of the respondents on a rent of Rs. 150.00 per month and on 31st May, 1965, they filed a petition under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fixation of stanKdard rent of the premises which is still pending for decision. On 6th April, 1970, the landlords (respondents herein) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,400.00 on account of arrears of rent at t contractual rate for the period from 1st April, 1967 to 31st March, 1970. The suit is pending in the Court of a Subordinate Judge 1 st Class, Delhi. The defendants in their written statement raised the plea that the suit was liable to be stayed under sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the determination of the standard rent by the Controller. This plea was opposed and failed before the Subordinate Judge who by order dated 22nd September, 1970 held that unless and until the standard rent or interim rent had been fixed by the Controller, the tenants were bound to pay the contractual rent and there was, therefore, no ground for stay of the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the tenants, who were defendants in the suit, filed a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) In support of the revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly relied on the decision of Tatachari, J. in Malik Girdhari Lal's case(1) where his lordship, following two authorities of the High Court of Madhya Bharat and one of the High Court of Hyderabad, namely, Dulhanmal Rizumal vs. Abdul Kadar, AIR 1950 MB 8(2), Manji Lal vs. Prem Chand, AIR 1951 Madhya Bharat l05(3) and Vishnu Dass vs. Dr. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1953 Hyderabad 144(4),heldthatinview of sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the landlord was not entitled to recover any amount in excess of the standard rent of the premises and since the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the standard rent, which could be determined only by the Controller being the special Tribunal created under the Act, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent should be stayed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the determination of the standard rent. The learned counsel has submitted that under the circumstances of the case, the suit ought to have been stayed by the Subordinte Judge and the decision of the Supreme Court in M.M. Chawla vs. J.S. Sethi, (1969) 1 Rent Control Reporter 861(5), relied upon by the Court below, was distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case.