BALDEV SINGH Vs. SHREE SANATAN DHARAM SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of two Civil Revision Petitions i.e. C.R. Nos. 1884 and 1922 of 2017 as common questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases. Reference is being made to C.R. No. 1884 of 2017, Baldev Singh Vs. Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha and another.

(2.) Challenge in the present revision petition by the tenant is to the order of the Rent Controller dated 27.02017 (Annexure P-4) vide which his application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure for lack of jurisdiction has been dismissed. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller is on the basis that under Sec. 2(d) of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (in short 'the 1997 Act'), a religious institution would mean a gurudwara, temple, church, mosque, temple of Jains or Budhas registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or established under any statute and includes any other place of worship by whatever name. The premises in question being shops as such, it was accordingly held that they would not be covered under the definition of religious institutions and the fact that the landlord could approach the Authority under the said act was for the benefit of the said landlord and not for the tenant. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha Sahib Virajman Gurugranth Sahib, Kukarmajra and another, 2009 (3) PLR 713 to hold that once the landlord had opted for his remedy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the 1949 Act') on the ground that the tenants were statutory tenants, the plaint was not liable to be rejected.

(3.) It is settled principle that a plaint can only be rejected in exceptional circumstances. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, 2012 (8) SCC 706 the principles regarding rejection of plaint were considered and it was held that it was the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint and the written statement is not to be taken into consideration to see whether the case falls within the ambit of Order 7, Rule 11 . Relevant observations read as under: