1981 (5) TMI 128 - HC - Indian Laws

Rent Controller authorized to try issues preliminarily under Urban Rent Act. Dismissed petition.

Ved Parkash Versus Om Parkash Nirwania

The court held that the Rent Controller has the authority to try an issue as a preliminary one under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ... - Issues:Whether the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, impliedly bar the trying of an issue as a preliminary one by the Rent Controller.Analysis:The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant based on non-payment of rent and impairment of the leased premises. The court framed several issues, with issue No. 2 regarding the validity of the rent tender being treated as a preliminary issue. The tenant objected to this treatment, leading to a revision petition.The main argument raised was whether the Rent Controller had the authority to try any issue as a preliminary one under the Act. The petitioner contended that the Act did not explicitly grant such power to the Rent Controller, implying a complete bar to doing so. However, the court disagreed with this argument, citing sections 16 and 17 of the Act, which only apply the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for specific purposes. The court emphasized that the Rent Controller has the freedom to devise their own procedure within the limits of the Act.Referring to previous judgments, the court reiterated that the Rent Controller is not bound by strict procedural rules and can adopt a summary and expeditious mode of disposal. The absence of detailed procedural provisions in the Act allows the Rent Controller to formulate their own procedure. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no implied bar against the Rent Controller trying an issue as a preliminary one.In analyzing a previous judgment cited by the petitioner, the court found no legal basis for the claim that there was a bar to trying an issue as a preliminary one. The judgment highlighted the Rent Controller's discretion in deciding whether to treat an issue as preliminary and emphasized that such decisions should not cause injustice or delay. Based on both legal principles and precedents, the court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Rent Controller's decision to treat issue No. 2 as a preliminary one.In conclusion, the court found no infirmity in the Rent Controller's order and upheld the decision that trying issue No. 2 as a preliminary one was appropriate. The revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.