UJAGGAR SINGH Vs. BHAG SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an application for ejectment before the Rent Controller impleading Bhag Singh and Brij Lal as respondents. He claimed that Bhag Singh was his tenant and Brij Lal was the sub-tenant under Bhag Singh. His contention before the Rent Controller was that the tenant had sub-let the premises without his consent. Before the Rent Controller Bhag Singh denied the tenancy. Brij Lal denied that he was a sub-tenant. He further pleaded that he was a direct tenant under the petitioner. The Rent Controller found that Bhag Singh was not the tenant of the Petitioner He also found that Brij Lal was not a direct tenant of the petitioner as claimed by Brij Lal. In view of the first finding that Bhag Singh was not the tenant of the petitioner, the application for ejectment was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed the present suit to recover a sum of Rs. 4,600/- for the use and occupation of the suit premises against Bhag Singh and Brij Lal. The second defendant Brij Lal filed a written statement contending that he, was a direct tenant of the petitioner plaintiff. One of the issues raised was as follows :-

(2.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the finding of the Rent Controller on the question whether the second defendant was the direct tenant of the plaintiff or not cannot be called in question in any Court of law in view of Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (III of 1949). He, however, does not urge that the plea of the second defendant is barred by res judicata. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 urges that it is not open to the petitioner to raise this point in revision, since the issue which was decided by the lower court was whether the finding of the Rent Controller operated as res judicata. There appears to be force in the submission of the learned counsel. That the finding of the Rent Controller does not operate as res judicata is altogether different from saying that his finding cannot be questioned in any court of law because of statute. Even otherwise I am not inclined to hold that the plea of the second defendant is barred by section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Since the Rent Controller arrived at the finding that the first defendant was not the tenant of the plaintiff, he had to reject the application for ejectment. It was wholly unnecessary for him to give a finding whether the presents second defendant was or was not a direct tenant under the present plaintiff. It is true that section 15(4) bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court from questioning the decision of the Rent Controller. This was also so decided in Ambala Bus Syndicate (PI Ltd. v. M/s Indra Motors, Kurali, 1969 RCR(Rent) 695 and in J.K. Kholi v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and anr,1975 AIRCJ 689, but it is to be noticed that in both those cases the decision of the Rent Controller was one which was necessary for the purpose of the decision of those cases, whereas, in the present case, such a finding was unnecessary. Where the party affected by the unnecessary finding does not even a right to appeal. I do not think that the Civil Court will be barred from going into the question. The bar of section 15(4) must be confined to the decision of the issue which are necessary for the purpose of decision under the Act.

(3.) In that view I do not see any merit in this Civil Revision which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.