Skip to content


Nanki Devi Vs. Ram Kishan Dass - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 963 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953P& H51
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 47
AppellantNanki Devi
RespondentRam Kishan Dass
Advocates: Shamair Chand, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredNathu Ram v. Ram Partap
Excerpt:
.....the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of..........other than for what eviction had been ordered and i also held that the act does not give to the rent controller any power to order possession being given after the property had been rebuilt. i am still of the same opinion, and, therefore, the compromise, which was entered into before the rent controller, was beyond the powers of the rent controller, because it is not within the jurisdiction of that authority to order possession being given after a building has been rebuilt. therefore, whether the order of the controller amounts to a decree which is executable as a decree of the civil court or not, the original order was beyond the jurisdiction of the rent controller, and, therefore, cannot be executed. as a matter of fact, this case falls within the rule laid down by me in -- nathu.....
Judgment:

1. I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge was in error in passing an order for delivery of possession of the rebuilt building to the tenant who was in possession before the property was rebuilt.

2. Nanki was the original landlord and she applied for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that she wanted the building for rebuilding, and this matter falls within Section 13(3) (a) (iii), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. A compromise was entered into on 28th November 1949 by which the tenant agreed to vacate the shop on the condition that he 'will be entitled to get it on fair rent from the landlord after she had rebuilt. The shop was rebuilt and the tenant applied for execution of the decree and prayed for possession being given to him.

3. The application for restoration of possession was dismissed by Mr. Augustine, Subordinate Judge, on 24th April 1951. On appeal being taken to the District Judge, he held that this decree was executable as a decree of Court, and, therefore, he ordered that possession be' given to the tenant. The landlord has come up in appeal to' this Court.

4. In -- 'Nathu Ram v. Ram Partap', 53 Pun L R 90, I had occasion to deal with a case such as this and there I held that Section 13(4), East Punjab Rent Restriction Act applies where the landlord has got possession of the premises for the purpose of keeping them for himself and does not do so, but rents them out to some other persons or puts them to use for any purpose other than for what eviction had been ordered and I also held that the Act does not give to the Rent Controller any power to order possession being given after the property had been rebuilt. I am still of the same opinion, and, therefore, the compromise, which was entered into before the Rent Controller, was beyond the powers of the Rent Controller, because it is not within the jurisdiction of that authority to order possession being given after a building has been rebuilt. Therefore, whether the order of the Controller amounts to a decree which is executable as a decree of the Civil Court or not, the original order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, and, therefore, cannot be executed. As a matter of fact, this case falls within the rule laid down by me in -- Nathu Ram v. Ram Partap', 53 Pun LR 90.

5. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of Mr. Augustine, dated 23rd April 1951.

6. As there is no appearance for the opposite party, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //