N.K. VIJ Vs. SH. KAMAL KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, filed on behalf of the landlord petitioner, is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated February, 13, 1981, whereby the application filed on behalf of the tenant-respondent for directing the landlord to reply the interrogatories was allowed.

(2.) Earlier, the tenant filed an application on September 15, 1980 for directing the landlord to reply the interrogatories. That application was disallowed on October, 15, 1980. The tenant moved another application on December, 10, 1980, for the review of the earlier order dated October, 15, 1980 and for directing the landlord to reply the interrogatories alleging that the previous application, under order 11 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the code), was rejected on the ground that those provisions did not apply to the rent applications, though the same apply as has been held in Civil Revision Petition No. 65 of 1961 (Bhagwan Singh v. Harbans Lal and others) decided on March 14, 1961, by the High Court and therefore the order dated October, 15, 1980, deserved to be reconsidered. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing both the parties observed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order :-

(3.) The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to recall his previous order passed on October, 15, 1980. According to the learned counsel, there was no specific power under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter called the Act given to the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority to review their orders and in the absence of any such specific power, the authorities under the Act, could not review their orders once passed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Nathulal v. Collector, Sawai, Jaipur, 1952 AIR(Raj) 36; P.L. Morada v. S.D. Bakshi, 1973 RCJ 692 Holdings, Punjab v. Jullundur and another, 1964,66 PunLR 318. It was also contended that in any case the discovery of a judgement subsequently, was no ground for reviewing the earlier order passed by the Rent Controller. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Jaswant Singh v. Balbir Singh, 1975 CurLJ . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that all the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relate to the final orders passed by the presiding officers, and not to the interim orders passed by them. According to the learned counsel, even a second application for the issuance of the interrogatories was not barred and, therefore, there was nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned order of the Rent Controller reviewing his earlier order. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliacen on Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 993.