BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. SOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh declining his application for staying the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Act.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the landlord instituted a petition for his eviction under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act on 19.11.1990 which matter is still pending before the Rent Controller. Since the petitioner did not seek relief of obtaining immediate possession of the demised premises, as now sought under Section 13-A of the Act, such a claim is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further stated that the landlord on his own averment was stated to be retiring from 30.11.1990 and thus this relief could well be claimed even when application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act was filed by him. As the landlord on his own had chosen not to seek the relief of immediate possession proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act are liable to be stayed. The respondent-landlord put in appearance and averred that the applications under Section 13 and 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act are quite distinct from each other and this way the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable nor this provision can be attracted to a rent petition. The respondent-landlord further submitted that he could exercise his right in terms of section 13-A of the Act within one year of his retirement and this way too the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted.

(3.) I am afraid that this contention of the learned counsel is far fetched. Both the provisions are on different footing even if the purpose of both the petitions is almost the same i.e. to get eviction of the petitioner. The Rent Controller is a persona designata under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act who acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal to decide the matters covered by the Act and thus has not the trappings of a civil Court. The Tribunal is well within its rights to regulate its own procedure. The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be applicable in a rent petition. Another objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that since the right to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act accrued to the landlord before the filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, the present petition filed subsequently is liable to be stayed. A bare perusal of the section 13-A Act makes it amply clear that the landlord could file a petition a year prior or within one year after the date of retirement. Thus, I find no merit in this submission of the counsel also. Resultantly, this petition is without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.