OM PARKASH MANGAL Vs. LEKH RAJ AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Lekh Raj, brought a suit against the petitioner for recovery ot Rs. 1.440.00 on account of arrears of rent in respect of a pT.rt of house bearing No. 974, Punjabee Mohalla, Subzimindi, Delhi. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 240.00 on account of electricity and water charges.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application raising a contention that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for rent inasmuch as the said jurisdiction is barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The trial Court decided against the petitioner and held that a suit for rent simpliciter is triable by a civil Court The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the said judgment of the trial Court dated 28th July, 1963. His main contention is based on the language of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other provisions of the said Act have been called in aid for the construction thereof. According to the petitioner, the effect of section 50 is that no civil Court can entertain any suit in so far as it relates to any matter which Controller is empowered by or under the said Act to decide. Principal reliance has been placed on sub-section (1) of section 50 which, when read, is as follows-

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, reliance has been placed on Lackhman Das v. Goverdhan Dass, as a judgment concluding the point in his favour. There, while dealing with the provisions of the Delhi and and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952), a Division Bench of this Court observed, "This anomaly would be all the more conspicous under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which came into force on 9th February, 1959, and repealed the Act, XXXVIII of 1952. In the said Act, the authority to determine the standard rent is vested in a special Tribunal, the Controller, appointed under that Act. The Controller is not authorised to hear and decide a suit for recovery of rent or to make any order in respect thereof......" The question referred to the Division Bench in that case was whether in a suit, otherwise within the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, the jurisdiction of such Court is ousted by the defendant raising the question of the fixation of standard rent according to the provisions of Act No. 38 of 1952, because such a question cannot be decided and disposed of by a Court of Small Causes. It was held that the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act did not oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, and that court would not become incompetent to try a suit for recovery of rent even if a plea of fixation of standard rent is raised by the tenant. Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that that case turned on the peculiar provisions of Act 38 of 1952 and the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and does not decide the question now raised. It is further argued that under ,the Act of 1952 the Civil Court was competent to determine the standard rent and there was no conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on any authority specially constituted under the Act. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, by reasons of sections 15(2), 16 and 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the decree for rent could be passed only by a Small Cause Court if the amount claimed was less than Rs. 500.00 and by no other. It is pointed out that it was in those circumstances that the observations relied upon by the respondent were made.