MANOHAR LAL Vs. INDERJIT SINGH ALIAS SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed by the landlord who had instituted the eviction petition seeking ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises on the grounds of non payment of rent w.e.f. 28.3.2000 and personal necessity. The petitioner/landlord is aggrieved against two orders passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, firstly dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P1), whereby his evidence was closed by order for the reason that neither any witness of the landlord was present nor cost was paid. This impugned order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P1) was made subject matter of review by fling an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P2), but the same was also dismissed, vide order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P4) on the ground that the Rent Controller has no power to review his own order (Annexure P1). Furthermore, the petitioner had not paid the costs of Rs.300/- on 1.10.2009, when the same was due and subsequent costs of Rs.500/- was also not paid on 26.10.2009. It will be apposite here to reproduce order dated 1.10.2009 and 26.10.2009:-

(2.) Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that Section 35-B CPC is not applicable to the proceedings arising out of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "1949 Act") as the Rent Controller is a persona designata and is entitled to follow any procedure which, in law, can be termed to be either reasonably correct or can promote justice. To fortify this submission, a reliance has been placed upon L.D. Arora v. Smt. Sushila Devi and Another, 1982 AIR(P&H) 105 wherein it was held as under:-

(3.) It is submitted that since Section 35-B CPC is not strictly applicable and the Rent Controller has to device his own procedure, therefore, eviction petition ought not to be dismissed for non payment of costs. Further reliance has been placed upon Raghbir Singh v. Karam Singh, 1989 PunLJ 457 to say that the Court which passed an order under Section 35-B CPC, striking off the defence for non payment of costs, can recall/review its order and/or extend time for payment of costs under Section 151 CPC and/or Section 148 CPC, on sufficient cause being shown but such an application should be a bonafide one and should be filed immediately, when the impugned order is passed. Further reliance has been placed upon Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda v. Bhim Singh,1987 1 PunLR 435 to contend that if the Court is satisfied, it has power to recall the order striking off the defence and grant more time for payment of costs. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has contended that the decision rendered in Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda's case (supra) is not attracted on the facts of the present case as the Rent Controller has no power to review or recall his order. In support of this, a reliance has been placed upon Jagdish Parshad v. Mehar Chand and Another,1993 1 RCR 459 wherein it was held that the power to review is not an inherent power but such a power must be conferred by Statute. The 1949 Act is a complete code and its provisions clearly indicate that the Code of Civil Procedure will not be intended to be generally applicable to the proceedings under the 1949 Act. Therefore, it is submitted that rightly the Rent Controller has not recalled his order, whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed.