SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference has been made in these three C.M.Ps. by a learned single Judge of this Court on 4-2-1982. The questions for decision formulated in the reference are as under :- 1. What is the ambit and scope of the words "the arrears of rent" used in sub-sec. (4) of S.12 and, in particular, whether these words include:- a. the arrears which are barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit; b. the arrears which are barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the application u/s.12; c. arrears for which a separate suit has been filed; d. arrears for which relief has been claimed in the suit for ejectment itself; e. arrears which accrue during the pendency of the suit for ejectment?

(2.) What is the ambit and scope of the power conferred on the appellate Court under sub-sec. (5) of S.12, and, in particular : - a. whether it is discretionary with the Court of appeal to order or not to order the recovery of arrears? b. whether the Court of appeal can order the recovery of arrears which the appellant could claim during the pendency of the suit? c. whether the Court of appeal can order the recovery of the arrears which have fallen due from the date of the decision of the suit for ejectment up to the filing of the appeal?"

(3.) Mr. Thakur appearing for the landlords has submitted that even time barred arrears of rent can be recovered u/s.12(4) of the J and K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. His contention is that the limitation is irrelevant in so far as the recovery of arrears of rent u/s.12(4) of the Act is concerned. According to him sub-secs.(1), (2) and (3) of S.12 of the Act are applicable in a situation which is distinct and different from the situation to which S.12(4) of the Act can be made applicable. It will be profitable to reproduce S.12(4) of the Act: