VED PARKASH Vs. OM PARKASH NIRWANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, impliedly bar the trying of an issue as a preliminary one by the Rent Controller is the significant question which had necessitated the admission of this revision petition for decision by a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass. Om Prakash Nirwania, respondent-landlord has preferred an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (herein after called the Act) for the ejectment of Ved Parkash petitioner tenant on the ground on non-payment of rent and further that the tenant had materially impaired the value and the utility of the premises leased out to him. The petitioner-tenant contested the application and also tendered the tent which was accepted by the respondent landlord under protest n the ground that the same was not complete and legal. On the pleadings of the parties the court struck the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on ground mentioned in the application ? 2. Whether the tender is not valid? 3. Whether the application is not verified in accordance with law? 4. Whether the written reply is not correctly verified. ? 5. Relief. Whilst framing the same, issue No. 2 was treated as a preliminary issue. The matter was then adjourned for argument thereon but later the petitioner tenant moved an application taking the firm stand that issue No. 2 could not be treated as a preliminary issue and that the earlier order be modified accordingly. The application was opposed by the respondent-landlord. On a full consideration of the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that no issue could be tried as a preliminary one in the rent jurisdiction the Rent Controller took a contrary view. He further held that because the decision of issue No. 2 in favour of the landlord-respondent would finally dispose of the ejectment application the said issue could rightly be treated as a preliminary one. Consequently the application of the petitioner-tenant was rejected and aggrieved thereby the present civil revision has been preferred.

(3.) As is eve manifest from the admitting order itself the core of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Act the Ren Controller is debarred from trying any issue in the proceedings before him as a preliminary one. Counsel contended that there was no specific provision in the act which vested the controller with any such power and the absence thereof must be construed by implication as a total bar to d so. Reliance for this slippery submission was sought to be tenuously placed on Dharam Paul v. Roshan Lal, (1980) 1 Rent CR 503(Punj).