GOBIND RAM Vs. TAKHAT MAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions (Civil Revision 395 of 1961 and Civil Revision 737 of 1961) arise out of proceedings begun by the landlord in each case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the tenant, and, although the facts in the two cases are different, one common question of jurisdiction has been raised and for that reason the petitions have been referred to us for decision.

(2.) THE premises in each of these cases are admittedly residential and urban. Each of these premises was previously evacuee property and had been allotted to displaced person by the Custodian. Subsequently, the premises in each case were transferred to a displaced person in satisfaction of his claim, and the occupant, being the allottee, was in each case informed about the transfer and required to attorn to the transferee.

(3.) THE common question of jurisdiction which has now been raised is that neither of these two proceedings could have been taken before the Rent Controller and neither that officer nor the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act had had any jurisdiction to decide the dispute.