The jurisdiction to adjudicate eviction cases for authorized tenants remains valid under the Rent Act even with the enactment of benefitting laws for landlords.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 (5) of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1949') for setting aside order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Rent Controller in "RP No. 32/2016" wherein preliminary issue i.e. Issue No. 9 "Whether the Jurisdiction of this Rent Tribunal is barred under Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997?" has been decided against the petitioners/tenants.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the respondent which filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1949 for ejectment of the present petitioners from the shop in question, is a Religious and Charitable Institution and the said fact is apparent from the Constitution of Shri Sanatam Dharam Sabha (Regd.), which has been annexed as Annexure P-7. It is submitted that the fact that respondent-Sabha is a Religious and Charitable Institution has also been admitted by Sh. Abhey Singla, who is the President of the respondent-Sabha, in his statement which has been annexed as Annexure P-6. It is argued that once it is established that the respondent is a Religious and Charitable Institution, then, only remedy which respondent had for seeking eviction of the tenants/petitioners was to file proceedings under Section 5 of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (Punjab Act No.4 of 1998) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1998').

3. It is argued that there is specific bar under Section 12 of the Act of 1998 vide which all other Courts have been barred from entertaining any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorized occupation of a religious institution or for recovery of arrears of rent. It is submitted that in view of the said bar, issue No.9, which was framed as a preliminary issue, should have been decided in favour of the petitioners and the impugned order, vide which, the said issue has been decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners, deserves to be set aside and eviction petition filed by respondent was required to be dismissed on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal. It is submitted that vires of the said Act has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the preliminary issue has been rightly decided in favour of respondent vide order dated 09.02.2024. It is submitted that it has been repeatedly held by this Court in various judgments that the Act of 1998 is a beneficial piece of legislation for the benefit of Religious and Charitable Institutions, providing summary remedy to the said Institutions to seek eviction and the same cannot even remotely be read in a manner so as to take away the rights of the said Religious and Charitable Institutions to institute proceedings under the Act of 1949, more so, when relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed between the parties. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha Sahib Virajman Gurugranth Sahiba Kukarmajra and another reported as 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 68 which decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further reference has also been made to the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case bearing No.CR-1884-2017 titled as Baldev Singh Vs. Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha and anot