OM PARKASH MONGIA Vs. LEKH RAJ AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent, Lekh Raj, brought a suit against the Petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,440 on account of arrears of rent in respect of a part of house bearing No. 974, Punjabee Mohalla, Subzimandi, Delhi. The Plaintiff also claimed Rs. 240 on account of electricity and water charges.

(2.) THE Petitioner filed an application raising a contention that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for rent inasmuch as the said jurisdiction is barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The trial Court decided against the Petitioner and held that a suit for rent simpliciter is triable by a civil Court. The Petitioner has challenged the correctness of the said judgment of the trial Court dated 28th July, 1965. His main contention is based on the language of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other provisions of the said Act have been called in aid for the construction thereof. According to the Petitioner, the effect of Section 50 is that no civil Court can entertain any suit in so far as it relates to any matter which Controller is empowered by or under the said Act to decide. Principal reliance has been placed on Sub -section (1) of Section 50 which, when read, is as follows - -

(3.) MR . Bikramjit Nayar, learned Counsel for the Respondent, says that an order made under Section 15 would not be executable as only final orders have been made executable and that law cannot be presumed to compel a landlord to take proceedings for ejectment in all cases irrespective of his wishes in the matter. It would be expedient now to refer for a moment to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rai Brij Raj Krishna's case. In that case, the Appellants before Supreme Court took proceedings for ejectment of the Respondents under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, before the House Controller on the grounds of non -payment of rent. The authorities under the Act ordered eviction and thereupon the Respondents filed a suit in a civil Court for a declaration that the order of the House Controller was without jurisdiction. The High Court decreed the suit upholding the contention. The main ground of attack against the Controller's order was that, in fact, there was no non -payment of rent and the controversy revolved round the question whether the House Controller was competent to decide whether or not the condition precedent to eviction, namely, non -payment of rent had been satisfied. The Supreme Court upheld the contention that the House Controller had such jurisdiction.