9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the eviction of the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union, and the appellant was also impleaded as a party to the suit. The respondents, in 1958, made an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that they had come to know that the last owner, the father of the first respondent, had let the building to the appellant for his residential purposes and that the case should proceed againt him only. But the Subordinate judge, before whom the suit was pending, did not permit the amendment of the plaint but granted permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one, by his order dated May 8, 1959. Thereafter, on February 25, 1960, the respondents made an application before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for the eviction of the appellant alone, without impleading the Union aforesaid as a party: The contention of the appellant was that the premises had been let out by the father of the first plaintiff-respondent to the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union for office-cum- residential purposes and the tenancy of the Union had never been terminated. The appellant also alleged that he was not a tenant and, therefore, the application for his eviction was not maintainable. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that prima facie the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established, on the basis of certain rent receipts granted by the respondents to the appellant. He also held that the respondents' personal bonafide need for accommodation had been established. Appeal against that order was dismissed on March 7, 1962, by the Rent Control Tribunal. On May 28, 1962, the appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab at Delhi against the order dated March .7, 1962, of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing his appeal against the order of eviction. No second appeal was taken to the High Court in respect of the dismissal of the appeal relating to the order dated March 6, 1962, of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his appeal in respect of the order of the Additional Rent Controller striking out his defence.The second appeal was dismissed summarily by a Single judge on May 31, 1962. The appellant moved this Court during the long vacation and obtained an order from the learned Vacation judge granting special leave to appeal, on June 5, 1962. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the landlord- respondent that no second appeal having been filed againts the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the owner of the premises would be entitled to institute a suit for ejectment in the Civil Courts, untrammelled by the provisions of the Act. It is only when he happens to be the tenant of premises in an urban area that the provisions of the Act,are attracted. If a person moves a Controller for eviction of a person on the ground that he is a tenant who had, by his acts or omissions, made himself liable to be evicted on any one of the grounds for eviction, and if the tenant denies that the plaintiff is the landlord, the Controller has to decide the question whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. If the Controller decides that there is no-such relationship the proceeding has to be terminated, without deciding the main question in controversy, namely the question of eviction. If on the other hand, the Controller comes to the opposite conclusion and holds that the person seeking eviction was the landlord and the person in possession was the tenant the proceedings have to go on. Under s. 15 (4) of the Act, the Controller is authorised to decide the question whether the claimant was entitled to an order for payment of rent, and if there is a dispute as to the person or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and benefit of the tenant. If the appellant took his stand upon the plea that he was not a tenant he should have simply denied the relationship and walked out of the proceedings. Instead of that, he took active steps to get the protection against eviction afforded by Act, by having an order passed by the Controller, giving him a locus poenitentiae by allowing further time to make the deposit of rent outstanding against him. The Controller, therefore, must be taken to have decided that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and secondly, that the tenant was entitled to the protection under the Act. It is true that the Act does not in terms authorise the authorities under the Act to determine finally the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Act proceeds on the assumption that there is such a relationship. If the relationship is denied, the authorities under the Act have to determine that question also, because a simple denial of the relationship cannot oust the jurisdiction of the tribunals under the Act. True, they are tribunals of the limited jurisdiction, the scope of their power and authority being limited by the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion that there was no ground for interference with the orders passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the question of condonation of delay is of no importance in this case. What is of greater importance is the merit of the decision awarding possession to the landlord. In this connection, it may be added that it was a little inconsistent on the part of the appellant to have taken all the advantages the Act affords to a tenant and then to turn round and to assert that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter, because he was not. the tenant. The Rent Controller had to determine the controversy as between the parties for the purposes of disposing of the case under the Act. If the appellant really was a tenant, he has had the benefit of the provision of the Act, including the six months' time as a period of grace after an order of the Rent Controller granting the landlord's prayer for eviction. If he was not the tenant, he has nothing to lose by the order of the Rent Controller. These proceedings cannot affect the interest of one who is not a party to the present case. Furthermore, a second appeal lay from the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
