VED PARKASH Vs. CHELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord Chela Ram filed an ejectment application under S.13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called the Act) against the tenant Ved Parkash inter alia on the ground that he had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenant, a preliminary objection was raised that the eviction application was not maintainable in view of the order dated March 24,1982, passed by the Rent Controller in the earlier eviction application filed by the landlord against the tenant on the same cause of action. Consequently, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the instant ejectment application was barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned Rent Controller found that the application was not maintainable in view of the earlier order passed by the Rent Controller dated March 24,1982, in the earlier ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Therein, it was observed by the Appellate Authority, -

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended in the first instance that the order of the Rent Controller dated March 23, 1984, was not appealable as such, as according to the learned counsel, the said order could not be said to have been passed under S.13 of the Act as only the orders passed under S.13 are appealable as provided under S.15(2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, since the order was not passed on the merits of the case, it could not be said that it was an order under S.13 of the Act. At the most, according to the learned counsel, it would be an order passed under S.14 of the Act and, therefore, not appealable. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Daya Nand v. Bir Chand (1983) 85 Pun LR 775. The learned counsel further contended that on this very ground, the earlier eviction application filed by the landlord against the tenant was dismissed as withdrawn by the Rent Controller vide order dated March 24, 1982, and, within 12 days thereof, the eviction application out of which the revision petition has arisen, was filed on the same cause of action. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the Rent Controller rightly found that the instant eviction application was barred in view of the earlier order dated March 24,1982. According to the learned counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was an order under S.13 of the Act, hence it was appealable as such. According to the learned counsel, the reasons given for dismissing the application may be any, but the application made was an application for eviction of the tenant under S.13 of the Act, which has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the same was not maintainable, in view of the earlier order dated March 24,1982. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the dismissal of the ejectment application was under S.13 of the Act, and, therefore, the appeal was rightly filed before the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by the Rent Controller earlier dismissing the previous ejectment application of the landlord as withdrawn against the tenant was without jurisdiction. The landlord made the application seeking permission to withdraw the application in order to file as fresh one. That application could either be dismissed or accepted as a whole. If the permission was not granted to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, the same could not be dismissed as withdrawn as it was never the prayer of the landlord. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1976 Rev LR 70.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the relevant orders.