SANTOSH CHOPRA Vs. TEJA SINGH SARDUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 24th May, 1975, by which an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved in that court. To appreciate the scope of the controversy in this Court it will be advantageous to first briefly notice the facts and circumstances leading to the impugned order. .

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant in the premises bearing No. 6324, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This property was owned by one Harbans Kaur. On February 9, 1971, the petitioner filed an application in the court of Rent Controller, Delhi, for fixation of standard rent of the premises in her occupation, claiming herself to be a tenant of Harbans Kaur. This application was decided exparte on October 12, 1971, and standard rent was fixed at Rs. 62.50 per month. On October 15, 1971, Harbans Kaur sold the said property to the present respondents. In September, 1973, an application was moved by the present respondents in the court of Additional Rent Controller under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the ex-parte order dated October 12, 1971, fixing the standard rent, be set aside. The present petitioner filed her reply and objections to that application on October 11, 1973, and, interalia, questioned the locus standi of the respondents to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There upon, the respondents in the end of October 1973, moved another application under Order I Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as a party to the original proceedings for fixation of standard rent. This application was also opposed by the present petitioner in her reply filed on November 15, 1973. By an order dated 23rd November, 1973, the Additional Rent Controller granted the application of the respondents hereinafter Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code etc. and ordered that the respondents be impleaded as a party to the original case of fixation of standard rent. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner herein moved this Court by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. By a judgment of Prithvi Raj, J. this Court accepted that petition, quashed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated November 23, 1975, holding that Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and remanded the case back for disposal of the respondents' application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was still pending. On February 7, 1975, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the respondents' application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code be dismissed without proceeding to record evidence. This application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code contending that the respondents' application was incompetent, mis-conceived and untenable. The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed this application of the petitioner and even expressed an opinion in paragraph 12 of the impugned order that without going into evidence it would be unjust to bar any remedy for a landlord like the respondents, if it is held that they cannot get the ex-parte order fixing standard rent set aside. An opinion has also been expressed that the respondents are the assignee of the rights of the previous landlords (wrongly mentioned as petitioner in the impugned order). It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court for interference with the order of the Additional Rent Controller under the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The first question that arises for consideration is whether the approach of the Additional Rent Controller is legally tenable. The respondents in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 have raised disputed questions of fact as to service of notice on Harbans Kaur etc. But foremost it has to be seen whether such application as moved by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code is one which the respondents had locus standi to move. The question is whether the Additional Rent Controller should have decided this matter as a preliminary issue or gone on to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code on merits and then at that stage decide about the locus standi of the respondents to move the application under Order 9 Rule 13