DAYA RAM Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the constitution praying for the transfer of an eviction petition riled by the Respondent landlord before the Controller, Kangra.

(2.) THERE is a shop located at Dharamsala of which the Respondent is the landlord and the Petitioner is tenant. In 1974 the Respondent applied to the Controller, Kangra for possession of the shop by the eviction of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an objection, and one of the grounds was that the property was located at Dharamsal and the Controller at Kangra had no jurisdiction to entertating the petition. At the same time, the Petitioner also applied to the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala for transfer of the case from the Controller at Kangra to the Controller at Dharamsala. The learned District Judge dismissed the transfer application on the ground that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked. The Petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The relief expressly prayed for is the transfer of the eviction petition from the Controller at Kangra to the Controller at Dharamsala. But learned Counsel for the Petitioner also prays for the relief that the eviction petition pending before the Controller at Kangra be quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

(3.) THE principal contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the first point is that the territorial jurisdiction of the Controller at Kangra is limited to the town of Kangra its if and does not extend to the town of Dharamsala. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, urges that the Controller at Kangra has jurisdiction which extends to the town of Dharamsala also. On a perusal of the material before me it appears that learned Counsel for the Respondent is right.