KRISHAN CHAND Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Chand and Bhagwan Dass filed an application under section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, before the Rent Controller for the prosecution of the respondents i.e. landlord and tenants, who according to their allegations have converted the building in dispute from residential building to non residential building. According to them, the respondents had contravened the provisions of section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and hence liable to be prosecuted. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the said allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the building in question was taken for the purpose of storing mercantile goods and was never taken for the purpose of residence and that the petitioners, who were strangers, had no locus standi to file the petition.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller found that the petitioners had no locus standi to file this application. It was further found that the premises were taken on rent by Roshan Lal for use as a store from Jagan Nath and he was using it as such and, therefore, he had not committed any contravention of Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, nor had he converted it into a non-residential building. In view of these findings, the application was dismissed vide order dated 25th October, 1978.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this petition. It could not be disputed that under section 19 of the Act, no Court can take cognizance for the offence except on a complaint of facts which constitute such offence filed with the sanction of the Rent Controller in writing. In the present case, the Rent Controller did not find it prima facie a case as to accord sanction for filing the complaint since it was not proved that the building given on rent for non-residential purposes was a residential building.