NAZIR KHAN Vs. SIRI CHAND PROPRIETOR ROZY STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a landlord. The respondent herein, the tenant, filed a civil suit complaining breach of an amenity attached to his tenancy and thereby successfully obtained a mandatory and prohibitory injunction from the civil Court. The injunction remained confirmed in the Court of the District Judge as well as in this Court, is R.S.A. No. 2160 of 1984 decided on 26th September, 1984. When the tenant sought to execute the decree, an objection was raised by the landlord in the executing Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree in face of the provisions of section 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The objection was over-ruled which has given rise to the present petition or revision at the instance of the landlord.

(2.) MR . Ujagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urges that section 10 of the Act impliedly bars a civil suit for it is specifically provided therein that a tenant in occupation of a building or rented land may apply to the Controller if the landlord has contravened the provisions of this section by cutting of or withholding any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant without just or sufficient case. The Controller on complaint and inquiry can restore such amenities directing the landlord for the purpose. From this is sought to be deduced that when a specific remedy has been provided under the Act, a civil suit was impliedly barred.