MALKIAT RAI Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-Bachan Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') on 19.10.1983 seeking ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from a portion of property No. 330, Gali No. 5, Gill Road Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Despite notice, the petitioner-tenant did not appear and an ex parte order of ejectment was passed against him on 01.06.1984 by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. On 03.01.1985, the petitioner/tenant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction. The said application was contested by filing reply by the landlord and the Rent Controller framed three issues on 14.02.1985 and vide order dated 24.05.1989, the application was accepted and ex-parte ejectment order was set aside subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 125/-.

(2.) The ejectment order was pertaining to the property No. 330 and was not with regard to the property No. 331. As per the allegations of the tenant, the landlord had tampered the record of the Court by changing the number of the property from 331 to 330. Thus, in the complaint filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C., it was prayed that the respondent be prosecuted for committing an offence under Sections 463 and 465 of IPC. The said application was allowed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana on 17.01.1995 against which a miscellaneous appeal was filed by the landlord. The said appeal was allowed on 17.08.2000 by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that against the order passed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. civil appeal was not maintainable but the learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Narang v. Veerun Narang, 2012 1 RCR(Cri) 195, has submitted that the Rent Controller is not a Court and cannot make a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. which could be made only by a private party. It is thus argued that order passed by the Rent Controller on 17.01.1995 was without jurisdiction.