The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are Civil Courts for the purposes of Sections 195(1)(b), 476 and 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Tuli, J.

1. The petitioner Shrimati Vidya Devi, filed an application under Sec.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment of the respondent-firm Madan Lal Prem Kumar, from the shop on the ground of non-payment of rent and house tax. It was stated that the shop in question had been let out at an annual rent of Rupees 1,050.00, that a sum of Rs.3, 864.00 was due from the respondent-firm for the period from December 9, 1963 to August 8, 1967 that a sum of Rs, 225.00 was due on account of the rent of the chhappar for the years 1963 to 1967 and that the respondent firm had also not paid the house-tax although the amount of house-tax was not stated in the application. The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the annual rent of the shop was Rs.8000.00 that the rent had been paid upto March 31, 1966 and that there was no liability of the respondent-firm tendered the arrears of rent dues from it to the landlord. On behalf of the landlord it was stated that the tender was not valid whereas the finding of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority was that it was a valid tender as the amount due on account of the arrears of rent did not exceed the amount tendered. On these findings, the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on July 31, 1968 and her appeal against the order was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on January 3, 1969. Before the Appellate Authority, a request was made on behalf of the respondent firm that the petitioner and her son Kishan Kumar who appeared as a witness in the case, should be prosecuted for having given false evidence by making a false claim in order to gain their end. The learned Appellate Authority observed as under :-

" The request is not unreasonable. From the perusal of the statements of the landlord and her son, it appears that they not only preferred a bogus claim but did not hesitate to perjure in Court. They claimed rent from 9-12-1963 to 31-31966 which was already paid. In Court also they denied the factum of receipt of this amount. They also perjured about the rate of rent and their entitlement to house-tax and rent for chhappar. For the eradication of the evil of perjury and in the interest of justice, it is expedient that such witnesses should be prosecuted for the offence of perjury. A notice be issued to Krishnan Kumar and Shrimati Vidya Devi to show cause as to why a complaint should not be filed against them for an offence under Sec.193, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed the present petition under Sec.15 (5) of the Act against the order of the learned Appellate Authority. It was admitted by Harbans Singh, J. , (as My Lord, the Chief Justice then was) on February 5, 1969. This order shows that the revision petition was admitted on the ground that the Appellate Authority is not a Court within the meaning of Sec.476, Criminal P. C. and therefore could not issue the notice. The petition then came up for hearing before Mehar Singh C. J. , on September 3, 1969 when it was referred to a larger Bench. It was thereafter placed for hearing before Mehar Singh C. J. , and myself on April 9, 1970 and we referred it to a Full Bench of five judges because the correctness of the judgment of Full Bench of three judges in M/s. Pitmans Shorthand Academy V/s. M/s. Lila Ram and Sons. Etc. , ILR (1949) E Punj 606 = (AIR 1950 E Punj 181) (FB) was doubted. This is how this petition has come up for hearing before this Bench.

2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Act are neither Courts nor Civil Courts as those terms are used in Secs. 195 (1) (b), 476 and 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to file a complaint for perjury against the petitioner and her son nor had any jurisdiction to issue the notice to the