RAM KRISHAN (NARNAUL) Vs. SANTRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHERE the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the important question to be answered in this case.

(2.) THE Rent Controller, Narnual, passed an eviction order against the tenant Ram Kirshan from the tenancy premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting. The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul. Against the order of the Appellate Authority the tenant filed a revision petition in this Court. One of the points urged by the respondent-landlady Smt. Santra Devi at the final hearing was that the provision of the Indian Evidence Act do not govern the proceedings before the authorities under the Act. In support of this contention reliance was placed on two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Dwarka Dass v. Smt. Ramlubhai, 1969 PLR 68 and Ram Parkash and another v. Labhu Ram, 1981(1) RCR 176 : 1981 PLR 59, wherein it had been observed that the Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Act. The Single Bench doubted the correctness of this observation in the said two judgments and opined that this view requires reconsideration. The case was, therefore, referred to a larger Bench for consideration.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent landlady contended that the authorities under the Act are not legally authorised to take evidence and so they are not covered by the definition of the term "Court" as given in the Indian Evidence Act. There is no merit in this contention which is evidently misconceived. In this connection, section 16 of the Act required attention, which is as follows :-