KHARAITI LAL Vs. BHAGWAN SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a matter which evidences variegation of judicial thought pertaining to the interpretation of S.8 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Though it has been given by the appellant's counsel a colour of conflict, yet it appears to me that the so-called conflict is illusory and does not tend to obstruct the course of justice, as would seem from the discussion hereafter.

(2.) The appellant herein is a landlord. He filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-respondent before the Rent Controller, Rupnagar, on 15th June, 1982. One of the grounds taken was that the tenant had not paid rent since Mar. 1977 to date and thus was in arrears of rent. The rent claimed was Rs.200/- per mensem. The tenant denied the rate of rent and instead pleaded that it was at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem and that rent at that rate had been paid by him till 14th Nov., 1980 and regarding rent he showed his inclination to pay on the first date of hearing. However, the tenant opted for paying on the first date of hearing the entire sum claimed at the rate of Rs.200/- per mensem in order to frustrate the designs of the landlord to have him summarily ejected. Since the parties were inter-gripped over the rate of rent, the Rent Controller framed issue No.2 as : "What is the rate of rent?" and placed onus of it on the parties. The landlord having pocketed substantial amount of rent, abandoned the proceedings and consequently the Rent Controller dismissed the petition for default on 3rd May, 1983. Just about a month thereafter, the tenant on 12th June, 1983, filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.15,080/- on the premises that the landlord had charged him extra in the earlier rent proceedings. The landlord raised the plea of limitation on the strength of S.8 of the Act. The trial Court treated the plea as preliminary and decided it against the tenant-plaintiff. The lower appellate Court, however, on appeal took a different view. It held that the suit was within limitation, as it could have been filed within a period of three years from the date of excess payment. On such view, the case was sent back for trial to the learned Subordiante Judge. Aggrieved against the said order, the landlord has approached this Court by means of this appeal.

(3.) The plea of limitation is built on the language of S.8(1) of the Act, which may well be reproduced here :-