Skip to content


Munna Lal Vs. Parkash Dev - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 84 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1952P& H258
ActsDelhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Restriction Act, 1947 - Sections 7
AppellantMunna Lal
RespondentParkash Dev
Appellant Advocate Bhagwat Dyal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.S. Gujral, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in..........be irrelevant because he would be in possession in 1937 and 1938. the next witness on whom the learned judge has relied upon is lakhi ram a.w. 2. his evidence again is that he had a 'dalan' and a 'kothri' at rs. 5/- per mensem for five years till 1347, and he also says that johri mal had another 'dalan' and a kothri and he was paying rs. 6 per mensem. mohammad yakuba.w. 4, has stated that ram gopal and hoti lal lived in this house. as to a.w. 2 beyond his bald statement there is no other proof that he was living in a portion of the premises in dispute. this is all the evidence that there is for the petitioner. this by itself, in my opinion, is wholly insufficient to prove what the rent was on the 1st of november 1939 and should have been rejected. 2. the landlord and his witnesses.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kapur, J.

1. In my opinion, this case has not been properly tried Parkash Dev, the tenant, took on rent the ground floor of a house at Rs. 65/- per mensem which included house tax, electricity charges and water charges on the 7th of July 1948. On the 4th October 1948, he put in an application for fixation of a standard rent. Two witnesses appeared in the box. A.W. 1, Ram Gopal stated that he was in possession, of a portion of the premises now in dispute about ten or eleven years before the application was made and he was paying Rs. 3/- per mensem. He was examined in February 1949-and if he was in possession ten or eleven years ago his evidence would be irrelevant because he would be in possession in 1937 and 1938. The next witness on whom the learned Judge has relied upon is Lakhi Ram A.w. 2. His evidence again is that he had a 'dalan' and a 'kothri' at Rs. 5/- per mensem for five years till 1347, and he also says that Johri Mal had another 'dalan' and a kothri and he was paying Rs. 6 per mensem. Mohammad YakubA.W. 4, has stated that Ram Gopal and Hoti Lal lived in this house. As to A.W. 2 beyond his bald statement there is no other proof that he was living in a portion of the premises in dispute. This is all the evidence that there is for the petitioner. This by itself, in my opinion, is wholly insufficient to prove what the rent was on the 1st of November 1939 and should have been rejected.

2. The landlord and his witnesses came into the box and they said that the premises in dispute had been let to one Nek Chand for Rs. 65/- a month and he produced Exhibits D. 1 and D. 3. Neither of these documents are traceable on the record and the learned Judge also has not referred to them.

3. Learned Judge has also referred to theMunicipal House Tax Assessment Register for theyear 1948-49 (A. 3) where the rental value is givenas Rs. 240/-. I have had occasion to refer to thismatter before and as at present advised, I am ofthe opinion that these documents are wholly irrelevant to prove the facts which had to be proved inthe matter of fixation of standard rent which hadto be decided only on matters referred to inSection 7 of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara RentRestriction Act read with Schedule II of the Act.In the present case in my opinion, there has been amistrial in the sense that the provisions of Section7 do not seem to have been present to the mindof the learned Judge who tried the case. I, therefore, quash all the proceedings and remand thiscase for re-trial in accordance with the provisionsof law. The costs will abide the event. Counsel'sfee Rs. 32/-. The parties have been directed toappear before the trial Judge on the 30th Of April1951.


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