JAI PARKASH GOYAL Vs. GURUDWARA SINGH SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who faces an order of eviction on the ground of the requirement of the landlord for their own needs for construction of a dharamshala is the revision-petitioner challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller, Amloh and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) TWO contentions have been taken by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner namely (i) the petition is not maintainable since the landlord had already availed of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for an action for recovery of the property under the provisions of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (hereinafter called for 'the Act 4 of 1998'). The said Act ousts the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority and the petition for eviction before the Rent Controller is not maintainable. (ii) the personal necessity of the landlord has not been established and the necessary proof that should have to be adduced had not been tendered at all to merit acceptance of such a plea for the authorities below.

(3.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner, the institution of the petition being an admitted fact, the landlord could not have pursued the application before the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority dealt with the issue of jurisdiction by reference to the fact that the Act 4 of 1998 had been challenged before this Court and the provisions of the Act had also stood stayed. The Appellate Authority, therefore, observed that in view of the stay of the operation of the Act, the bar under Section 12 would not operate. It is now an admitted fact that the constitutional vires has been upheld by this Court and the stay has also been vacated.