Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Shiv Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Bala - Respondent
CR-404-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-02-2021
CPC - Ejectment Petition - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 - [CPC, Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18] - The court discussed the application of Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 of the CPC in the context of an ejectment petition under the Rent Act. It highlighted that the Rent Controller's discretion to order the production of documents is to be exercised only for documents relating to the matter in question in the suit. The court emphasized that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court and the principles of CPC are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act. It concluded that the attempt to delay and stall the proceedings through the application was not justified, and upheld the Rent Controller's decision to dismiss the application.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The petitioner sought the production of the document of title in respect of the demised premises under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 of the CPC. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, leading to the petitioner's revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Controller correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application, as the documents sought were not relevant to the matter in question in the ejectment petition. It noted that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court and the principles of CPC are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act. The court also observed that the attempt to delay and stall the proceedings through the application was not justified.
Issues: The issues included the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, arrears of rent, bona fide necessity, and creating a nuisance. The court highlighted the issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant as relevant to the Rent Controller's determination in an ejectment petition under the Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Rent Controller's discretion to order the production of documents is to be exercised only for documents relating to the matter in question in the suit. It also underscored that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court and the principles of CPC are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act. The court concluded that the attempt to delay and stall the proceedings through the application was not justified.
Final Decision: The court found no illegality or perversity in the Rent Controller's decision to dismiss the application and upheld the same, ultimately dismissing the revision petition.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. (Oral). - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') for producing on record the document of title in respect of the demised premises, has been dismissed.
2. On 14.08.2017 the respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner seeking his eviction from House No.HL-119, PHB Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide necessity and creating a nuisance. The petitioner put in appearance but did not file a written statement. Instead he filed an application (Annexure P-2) under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 CPC directing the respondent to produce on record the document of title in respect of the demised premises besides special power of attorneys if any or copies thereof, house tax and water charges bills. The respondent filed a reply (Annexure P-3) to the said application inter-alia raising a preliminary objection that the CPC was not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act. The application (Annexure P-2) was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner filed CR No. 5041 of 2019 before this Court challenging the order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). Vide order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) this Court disposed off CRNo.5041 of 2019 and set aside the order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) and directed the Rent Controller to pass a speaking and well reasoned order afresh on the application (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 CPC. The Rent Controller heard the parties again and vide impugned order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the application (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has no right, title or interest in the demised premises and she is debarred from filing the ejectment petition. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the document of title has a bearing on the present case, so its production and its inspection by counsel for the petitioner is essential and necessary. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in "Desa Sinuh throuuh LRs V/s Sukhrai Kaur and others" 2019(2) PLR 715, "Onkar Sinsh V/s Ravinder Malhotra" 2013(36) RCR (Civil) 684 and "Sharvan Kumar V/s Sumeet Kumar Gar2" 2002 (3) PLR 666.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The ejectment petition in the present case was filed by the respondent on 14.08.2017 and till the passing of the impugned order (Annexure P-6) on 09.02.2021, the petitioner had not filed his written statement. Thus, there was no written statement before the Rent Controller wherein the petitioner may have denied the title of the respondent or even denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Instead of filing a written statement the petitioner filed the application (Annexure P-2) under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 CPC for directing the respondent to produce on record the document of title in respect of the demised premises besides special power of attorneys if any or copies thereof, house tax and water charges bills. The Rent Controller, without there being on record any defence on the part of the petitioner, could not exercise the discretion available to him under Order XI Rule 14 CPC and direct the respondent to produce on record the document of title in respect of the demised premises besides special power of attorneys if any or copies thereof, house tax and water charges bills.
6. Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 CPC read as under:
"14. Production of documents - It shall be lawful for the C
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
