DAULAT RAM Vs. GIRDHARI LAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DAULAT Ram, Appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated the 7th November, 1975, passed by Shri H. L. Randev, Additional District Judge, Barnala, exercising the powers of appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, who has dismissed the application filed by the Appellant under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, for launching prosecution against the Respondents for offences under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) DAULAT Ram, Appellant. had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) against Girdhari Lal, Respondent, for his eviction from House No. 4607, situated at Barnala, which was occupied by Girdhari Lal, tenant -Respondent. The main ground for eviction set up in the petition was that the tenant had not paid the rent. Girdhari Lal, tenant -Respondent put in a written statement and stated therein that he had paid the rent amounting to Rs. 1,980 for the period from 1st of June, 1971 to 30th of May, 1976. In order to support his case, he produced a receipt purported to have been issued by Daulat Ram, Appellant. He examined Bharpur Singh to substantiate his claim. He made his own statement also. The learned Rent Controller did not accept the version set up by Girdhari Lal, Respondent. He came to the conclusion that the receipt produced by Girdhari Lal was a forged and fictitious document and that Girdhari Lal and Bharpur Singh, Respondents had made false statements before him. He allowed the application filed by Daulat Ram, Petitioner -Appellant, and ordered eviction of Girdhari Lal, tenant -Respondent. The appeal filed by the tenant -Respondent was decided by Shri H. L. Randev, the appellate authority, who also upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Regarding the receipt and the evidence of the two witnesses Girdhari Lal and Bharpur Singh, he held that the receipt was a forged document and these witnesses have made false statements. Daulat Ram, Petitioner -Appellant, then moved an application under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that prosecution should be launched against Girdhari Lal and Bharpur Singh, Respondents under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The notice of the application was given to the Respondents, who appeared before the learned Appellate Authority and raised two preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the application.

(3.) AT the outset it may be stated that the case is not governed by the Old Code. The appellate authority decided the ejectment application on 7th June, 1975. The present application has been filed after 1st of April, 1974, when the Code 'of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came into force. In the old Code, the provision for filing the application was contained in Section 476, but in the New Code, the provision for filing such an application has been made under Section 340. Since the application has been filed after the doming into force of the Code of 1973, the application shall be decided in accordance with the procedure prescribed by this Code. Section 195 of the New Code, provides the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings in the Criminal Courts. It is in the following terms: