KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by the tenant is directed against Order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur dismissing his application in which prayer was made to take action against the landlord- respondents under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') for claiming rent twice from him with effect from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1994. The landlord-respondent has admitted that by a bona fide mistake, the rent has been claimed twice for the same period and there is no mala fide. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the necessary requirement of Section 19(3) of the Act has not been fulfilled by the tenant-petitioner, inasmuch as, no sanction from the Rent Controller in writing was obtained within the meaning of Section 6(1)(a) of the Act. The views of the Rent Controller on the issue reads as under :-

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which led to the filing of the instant petition are that the tenant-petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Act being Case No. 1-2 of 7.1.1999 with a prayer that the penalty be imposed on the landlord-respondents on account of contravening the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. The tenant-petitioner is a tenant in the demised shop at the rate of Rs. 110/- per year under landlord-respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the father and general power of attorney of respondent No. 1. Landlord-respondent No. 1 had earlier filed an ejectment application against the father of the tenant-petitioner who had expired during the pendency of the application as party. The tenant-petitioner appeared and tendered rent of Rs. 410/- i.e. Rs. 330/- as arrears of rent from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1994 plus Rs. 40/- as interest and Rs. 40/- as costs which were duly received accepted by respondent No. 2. In a later petition filed by landlord-respondent No. 1, arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1992 till 16.10.1996 were claimed which show that it included the period for which the rent had already been paid. According to the averments made in the petition, it was asserted that the tenant-petitioner did not pay the rent of the tenanted premises after the death of his father. The tenant-petitioner again tendered rent in respect of the period from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1994 to avoid ejectment on 7.5.1997. On the aforementioned allegations, an application was filed on 7.1.1999 that the landlord-respondents have contravened sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, and therefore, they are liable to be punished in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by observing that no penal proceedings could be initiated against the landlord-respondents unless the sanction in accordance by the Rent Controller in writing for the filing of the complaint and moreover, no fair rent in this case under Section 5 of the Act was fixed which is the requirement of Section 6(1) of the Act.

(3.) MR . K.R. Dhawan, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that once it is admitted that rent has been claimed and accepted in respect of the same period twice, then, the basic ingredients of Section 6(1) read with Section 19(2) of the Act are fulfilled and the landlord-respondents are liable to be punished under Section 19(2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, there is no other mode of proving the unfair demand by the landlord- respondents except showing that rent has been claimed for the same period twice.