SURINDER KAUR Vs. UJAGGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ujaggar Singh landlord filed a petition for the ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) against Surinder Kaur tenant. The parties went to trial and on 11th January, 1980 the counsel for the landlord pleaded that the ejectment application be permitted to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action as there was non-joinder of the necessary party. According to the written statement filed on behalf of Surinder Kaur, she along with her husband Harbhajan Singh were joint tenants of the property, but the petitioner did not choose to add Harbhajan Singh who was the necessary party. The Rent Controller allowed the prayer subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 50/-. This order is sought to be impugned by Smt. Surinder Kaur in this revision petition.

(2.) As is clear from the provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller under the Act. However, Section 16 of the Act provides that the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller appointed under the Act shall have the same powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence as are vested in the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It would thus be seen that for the limited purpose of summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable. Nothing could be pointed out to hold that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the Act. In this view of the matter, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to allow the landlord to withdraw the petition and grant permission to him to file fresh application on the same cause of action. This view of mine finds support from a Single Bench decision of this Court in Goverdhan Dass. v. Sodhi Dyal Singh etc., 1969 RCR(Rent) 938.

(3.) The revision petition is liable to be accepted on another ground also. Even if for the sake of argument if it be held that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller are applicable to the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller mere non-Jonder of the necessary party cannot be held to be a defect of formal nature. This has been so held in Trinath Parida v. Sobha Bhilaini and another, 1973 AIR(Ori) 37 and Brahamand v. Parbati,1977 2 RCJ 387. It may further be pointed out that in the beginning the tenant had taken the plea that she along with her husband were the co-tenants of the demised premises. The landlord could make an application for impleading the necessary party in the same proceedings, but no steps were taken by the landlord. When the ejectment petition came up for final hearing, prayer was made that the same be allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh application on the same cause of action. From what has been stated above, it is obvious that the Rent Controller who had no jurisdiction to grant such permission and has exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in him.