SAT PAUL VERMA Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amar Nath filed an application for the ejectment of Roshan Lal and others from a shop situate in Ambala Cantt on several grounds. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., by order dated 19th of December, 1973. The landlord filed an appeal before the learned District Judge as Appellate Authority. In appeal it was urged that the learned Rent Controller, who was Subordinate Judge posted at Ambala Cantt had ceased to be Rent Controller after the enforcement of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with effect from 25th April, 1973 and the powers of Rent Controllers had been transferred to Sub Divisional Officers Civil) and therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controller, who was Subordinate Judge, Ambala Cantt, dated 19th December, 1973 was a nullity. This argument prevailed with the Appellate Authority and by order dated 21st November, 1975 the appeal was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside being a nullity. The three respondents impleaded in the ejectment petition have come to this Court in revision to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority and for restoration of the Order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties I find that the Appellate Authority was in error in coming to the conclusion that the Rent Controller (Subordinate Judge) had no jurisdiction to decide the application of ejectment on 19th December, 1973. This matter is fully covered by two decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra Bhatnagar v. Chuni Lall Kalaigar, 1976 CurLJ 1(Civil), and Dalip Kumar (Major) & Pardip Kumar (Minor) v. Shri Mulak Raj Bhawan, 1976 78 PunLR 279. The proceedings pendings before Subordinate Judge as Rent Controller on and after 24th January, 1974 were to stand transferred to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) as Rent Controller, but before 24th January, 1974 all proceedings pending before Subordinate Judge as Rent Controller could be finally disposed of before that date. In the present case the Subordinate Judge as Rent Controller disposed of the eviction petition before 24th January, 1974 and therefore, that order was not without jurisdiction.

(3.) ; Section 24 of the Act was not very clear and therefore, by a later amendment Act Section 20 - A was inserted which provided that all pending proceedings before Subordinate Judges who perform the functions of the Rent Controllers shall stand transferred to the Sub Divisional Officers, Civil, with effect from 24th January, 1974, which was the date when the amendment Act 4 of 1974 came into force and sub-section (b) provided that an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge as Rent Controller shall lie to the District Judge conferred with the powers of Appellate Authority. Since the appeal was filed by the landlord before the District Judge against an order of the Rent Controller, passed before 24th January, 1974, the same was properly filed in view of sub-section (b) and deserves to be decided by the Appellate Authority (District Judge) on merits. As I find that the merits were not dealt with by the Appellate Authority as it only confined to the decision of the point whether the Rent Controller (Subordinate Judge) had the jurisdiction to decide the ejectment application.