LACHHMI DEVI Vs. PUSHPA VATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 387 and 476 of 1975, which involve common questions of law and fact.

(2.) First I will deal with Civil Revision No. 387 of 1975. Briefly the facts are that Salt. Lachhmi Devi, petitioner, filed an application on November 11, 1971, under section 13 (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), to the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., for the ejectment of the respondents from the property in dispute, situated in Ambala Cantt. The application was dismissed by him on November 19, 1973. She went up in appeal before the District Judge, Ambala, who accepted the same and remanded the case on July 26, 1974 with a direction that the matter may be decided afresh by the Rent Controller after allowing her to amend the petition. The respondents came up in revision against the order of the District Judge, to this Court, in Civil Revision No. 979 of 1974. Sharma, J., while dealing with the revision petition, held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Rent Controller, and in case he was dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, he could make a further enquiry as he thought fit either personally or through the Rent Controller. The learned Judge consequently accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the District Judge with the direction that he should decide again whether he would like to hold an enquiry himself or would like to have it conducted by the Rent Controller. It was also observed by the learned Judge that in case he decided to have the enquiry conducted by the Rent Controller, he would call for his report and himself decide the case in accordance with law.

(3.) In pursuance of the order of this Court, the learned District Judge sent the case to the Rent Controller for submitting a report. In the meantime, Haryana Urban (Control r)f Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act), was enforced within the State of Haryana. The said Act was also enforced by Notification No. SRO 171 dated May 1, 1974 to the Cantonments situated in Haryana. Consequently the tenant Controller sent back the case to the District Judge with a note that he could not deal with the case any further. The District judge held that the Subordinate Judge, Ambala was not the Rent Controller on November 19, 1973 when he passed the order and therefore, his order was without jurisdiction. He consequently decided the appeal pending before him as well as the reference and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The petitioner having left aggrieved from the order of the District Judge has come to this Court in revision.