AMAR NATH SARIN Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this appeal from order briefly stated are as under Brijnath Sarin rented out property to Virender Kumar Jain on August 31, 1959. Shortly thereafter Brij Nath Sarin died and on August 10, 1962, the present suit was filed by Virender Kumar Jain against the heirs of Brij Nath Sarin for recovery of Rs. 1,500/- which was allegedly had been paid to Brij Nath Sarin as premium in consideration of letting the property in question to Virender Kumar Jain. Objection was taken on behalf of Shrimati Jag Rani Sarin, Amar Nath Sarin and Rajeshwar Nath Sarin, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that in view of Sections 5, 13 and 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 52 of 1958 the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. By judgment 31st August, 1963, the trial Court upheld the objection but the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in appeal vide his order dated May, 8, 1964, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that the objection had no merit. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was that no doubt the payment of premium money was for the first time made illegal by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, and then by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , and the right to recover the same was also for the first time provided by these two Acts but still Section 50 would bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court only if an application for refund had been made under Section 13 to the Controller within one year from the date of such payment. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in his opinion. Section 50 in terms ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of various matters and the ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of various matters and the ouster in terms extends to "any matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide". One has therefore to see whether the refund of the premium money is one of the matters which the Controller is empowered under this Act to decide. In my opinion, Section 13 clearly contemplates that whether or not any premium has been paid in violation of the statute falls clearly to be determined by the Controller under Section 13. Section 13 contemplates that on an application made to him he shall determine whether or not any such payment had been made and if so whether or not it should be refunded. In this view Section 50 was clearly applicable and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that by reason of Section 5 of the Act the payment was clearly illegal and Section 65 read with Section 23 of the Indian Control Act gave him a right to recover that amount for which the period of limitation was provided in Article 62 of the Limitation Act. I am not impressed with this argument and, in my opinion, a special period of limitation has been provided in Section 13. In this view the appeal must be allowed and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 8th May, 1964, set aside. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.