KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. KASHMIRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-Kashmiri Lal filed a petition under Section 19(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, praying therein that he be granted permission to prosecute the petitioners for the contravention of Section 9 of the Act for charging excess rent and for charging house tax amount which he was not liable to pay.

(2.) THE Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 11.5.1987 allowed the petition filed by the respondent-Kashmiri Lal and held that the petitioners had accepted rent twice from the respondent for the period 1.1.1978 to 22.1.1978 and had also charged house tax amounting to Rs. 360/- and Rs. 65/- as interest on house tax in the previous ejectment application, although there was neither any agreement between the parties to that effect nor any notice under Section 9 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was served by the petitioners on the respondent. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, granted permission to prosecute the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act for charging excess rent and for charging house tax amount which Kashmiri Lal as not liable to pay. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by Kashmiri Lal on 5.8.1986 was hopelessly time barred as the offence under Section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is alleged to have been committed in the year 1978 and, therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed within six months of the commission of the offence. As the same has been filed after more than 8 years, therefore, the institution of the very complaint itself was highly belated.