DHARAM PAUL Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dharam Pal has filed this revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner praying that issue No. 3 (whether the application is liable to be stayed in view of the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act filed by the respondent, be treated as a preliminary issue.

(2.) The petitionr had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 9.12.1977 for ejectment of his tenant, Roshan Lal, on a number of grounds, inter alia, that the building in dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. This application is pending and the landlord has already concluded his evidence. Roshan Lal, the tenant filed an application under Section 12 of the Act praying for permission to make necessary repairs in the building. The petitioner contested this application and put in his reply. Issues were framed on 4.10.1979. Issue No. 3, which has been reproduced above, was framed at that time and no request was made to treat this issue as a preliminary one. The case was fixed for recording the evidence of the tenant-applicant. The petitioner moved an application that issue No. 3 be treated as preliminary issue and decided first. This application was declined by the Rent Controller on 29.1.1980 holding that the application for treating issue No. 3 as a preliminary one was malafide and made simple to delay the proceedings. He also held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') would not be applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The Act is a complete Code in itself and there was no provision for treating such an issue as a preliminary issue. Mr. V.K. Jhanji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the issue involved in the application under Section 12 of the Act were substantially the same as those in the application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act. Since that application had been filed earlier, the application under Section 12 of the Act, which was filed later on, was liable to be stayed in accordance with the principle enshrined in Section 10 of the Code. He contended that even if the provisions of the Code are inapplicable to the proceedings under the Act, the principles given therein had to be kept in view by the Rent Controller. He has contended that the decision in the application under Section 12 of the Act will be res-judicata in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. M.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, has argued that there is no provision in the Act empowering the Rent Controller to treat any issue as a preliminary issue. Even under Rule 2 of the Order 14 of the Code, only such issues of law as relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being, can be tried as preliminary issues. According to him, issue No. 3 is not such an issue. Even if this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner, it would not dispose of the case or any part thereof. At best the application under Section 12 of the Act will stand stayed till the decision of the application under Section 13 of the Act. The former application will not, in any manner, be disposed of, so, the decision of the Rent Controller in not treating issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue is perfectly legal.