1. Gurdial Singh petitioner is in occupation of the disputed premises (godown) in Amritsar as a tenant under the respondents. The respondents filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondents filed an application under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, read with S. 151, Civil P. C., seeking ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner from making any addition alteration or rebuilding the fallen roof and to carry out any repair in the disputed godown till the disposal of the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated Jan. 6, 1984, issued the ad interim injunction as prayed for against the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to issue ad interim injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil P. C., in ejectment proceedings under the Rent Control Act pending before him. Even otherwise, the respondents have failed to make out a case for ad interim injunction in their favour in terms of O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2, Civil P. C. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Rent Controller has inherent power to issue the ad interim injunction to meet the ends of justice and it is what has happened in the instant case. Reliance has been placed on Madan Lal v. Vir Inder Kumar Kaura, (1978) 80 Punj LR 388.
3. In Madan Lal's case (supra), the learned single Judge upheld the order of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act to allow the landlord to withdraw the application with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action in terms of O. 23, R. 1(3), Civil P. C., The ratio of this authority was overruled by a Division Bench in Ram Dass v. Smt. Sukhdev Kaur, AIR 1981 Punj and Har 301. It has been held therein that the Civil P. C. as such does not govern the proceedings under the Act except to the limited extent provided for under Ss. 16 and 17 thereof. Even by applying those provisions most liberally one cannot bring in either expressly or by necessary implication the rest of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It was further held that in particular it would be evident that the specific and detailed provisions of O.23, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. would not, therefore, be applicable to rent jurisdiction. The Controllers and the Appellate Authorities being persona designata are entitled to devise their own procedure within the confines prescribed by the Act itself.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in view of the fact that the authorities under the Rent Control Act are entitled to devise their own procedure though within the confines prescribed by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, it should be inferred by implication that they are competent to issue ad interim injunctions in terms of O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil P. C., in exercise of inherent powers. The contention is without merit. The power to issue a temporary injunction under O. 39 is specific like the power excisable under O. 23, R. 1, Civil P. C. The power under O. 23, R. 1, Civil P. C., cannot be exercised by the authorities under the Rent Control Act. For the same reason, the authorities under the Rent Control Act cannot exercise the power of issuing temporary injunction in terms of O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil P. c. in proceedings under the Rent Control Act.
5. In view of discussion above, the impugned order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained.
6. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order of the Rent Controller dated Jan 6, 1984, set aside.
7. Petition allowed.