MULAKH RAJ Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a long and chequered history involving the parties in litigation over the property in dispute for a period spreading over two decades. In this litigation it is for the second time that the parties have come to this Court. On the earlier occasion they had come in a writ petition filed by the appellant against the transfer of the property of the Rehabilitation Department in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant is a displaced person. He was in occupation of an evacuee house (the disputed property) in Ludhiana, which was transferred by the Rehabilitation Authorities in favour of Mohan Lal respondent. The appellant, who was paying rent to the Department, was directed to attorn in favour of the respondent and pay rent to him by the Rehabilitation Department. The respondent, on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant, so created by the transfer, took ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, for the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute. The Rent Controller passed orders for the eviction of the appellant, which were affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The respondent in execution of those orders evicted the plaintiff appellant and got the possession of the premises. The appellant then filed civil suit, which gave rise to this Regular Second Appeal, in the Court of the sub-Judge at Ludhiana seeking declaration that the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority passed against him were without jurisdiction and void and that the respondent be restrained from withdrawing the money deposited by way of rent. He also prayed for another relief that the respondent be directed to put him in possession of the premises from where he has been illegally and wrongfully evicted.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed issue No. 1 in the suit regarding the validity of the orders of the Rent Controller. Issue No. 2 was about the maintainability of the suit and issue No. 3 was about the Union of India being a necessary party. Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were about limitation, Court-fee and jurisdiction of the Civil Court respectively.