Civil Court retains jurisdiction to decree recovery of rent despite proceedings under the Rent Act, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to assail the order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla. By the said order, the Executing Court dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, in Execution Petition No. Exe-212/2018 titled Surjeet Singh v. Harvinder Singh .

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the genesis of the proceedings lies in an ejectment petition filed by respondent-landlord Surjeet Singh against Harvinder Singh, the predecessor of the present petitioners, in respect of a shop, primarily on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller allowed the petition vide order dated 18.11.2013, ordering eviction. The appeal preferred by Harvinder Singh was dismissed on 06.10.2014 by the Appellate Authority. Consequent to the eviction order attaining finality, warrant of possession was issued during execution, resulting in delivery of actual physical possession to the landlord on 31.08.2015. The execution petition was thereafter dismissed as withdrawn on 04.09.2015.

3. Subsequently, the landlord instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- as arrears of rent for the period commencing from 01.12.2008. The defendant contested the suit. However, by judgment dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), the learned trial Court decreed the claim, awarding recovery along with interest. In execution of this money decree, objections were filed by the judgment-debtor through his legal representatives, which have been rejected by the impugned order.

4. To assail the above order, the principal submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners are threefold:

(i) that the decree dated 16.11.2018 is a nullity, being passed in a matter exclusively falling within the domain of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949;
(ii) that the suit was barred by limitation;
(iii) that since the earlier execution in the rent proceedings had been dismissed as withdrawn, the subsequent execution ought to have been treated as impermissible.

5. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no substance in any of these contentions.

6. At the outset, the argument that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decree a suit for arrears of rent is wholly misconceived. The scheme of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 is clear and well-settled. The Rent Controller is a creature of statute and possesses only such jurisdiction as is expressly conferred by the Act. The Rent Controller is empowered to adjudicate specific grounds of eviction, including non-payment of rent. However, the Act does not confer on the Rent Controller any authority to pass a decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The statutory mechanism under Section 13 merely envisages assessment of arrears for the limited purpose of enabling the tenant to avail the protective umbrella of “first default” by tendering rent within the stipulated period. This assessment is incidental to the eviction proceedings and does not substitute a civil remedy for recovery.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, re-affirmed that where the statute is silent, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent remains intact. A decree passed by a competent Civil Court, therefore, cannot be termed a nullity on the ground that the Rent Act incidentally deals with arrears for eviction purposes. Hence, the c