NANDU RAM Vs. JAGANNATH PARSHOTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are applications in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings in two cases instituted by the applicant Nandu Ram as landlord under Section 13 2. i. of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949., one against Jagannath Parshotam Das, & the other against Hansraj Manoharlal, for their eviction from the shops occupied by them on the ground of non payment of rents respectively due by them. Both the applications can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) THE landlord's application was dismissed by the Controller, and so was his appeal by the District Judge as appellate authority under Section 15 of the Act in both the cases. The District Judge agreed with the Controller that there was 'no non payment of rent' as contemplated by Section 13 of the Act. In the course of his judgment, he also observed that in view of certain observations of this Court in Lalla Ram v. Naresh Chand', AIR 1952 Him P & B 28, the question of the date from which the order of the Controller fixing fair rent became operative could only be determined in a suit in respect of rent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents took the preliminary objection that, in view of the concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below that there was no non payment of rent on the part of the tenants, these are not fit cases in which this Court should exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued on the basis of: 'Bawa Singh v. Kundal Lal', 54 Pun L R 358, ' Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers', AIR 1951 S C 115, 'Narendra Nath v. Binode Behari', AIR 1951 Cal 138 and ' Pushpa Devi v. Kanshi Ram Nand Kishore', AIR 1951 Him P 72, that this was a fit case for the exercise of the said power because the District Judge had refused to exercise a jurisdiction which did vest in him by erroneously holding that the question as to the date from which fair rent fixed by the Controller became operative could not be determined in the proceedings before him but only by a separate suit.