Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

1981 (5) TMI 128

t Restriction Act, 1949, impliedly bar the trying of an issue as a preliminary one by the Rent Controller is the significant question which had necessitated the admission of this revision petition for decision by a Division Bench. 2. The facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass. Om Prakash Nirwania, respondent-landlord has preferred an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (herein after called the Act) for the ejectment of Ved Parkash petitioner tenant on the ground on non-payment of rent and further that the tenant had materially impaired the value and the utility of the premises leased out to him. The petitioner-tenant contested the application and also tendered the tent which was accep .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

roller is debarred from trying any issue in the proceedings before him as a preliminary one. Counsel contended that there was no specific provision in the act which vested the controller with any such power and the absence thereof must be construed by implication as a total bar to d so. Reliance for this slippery submission was sought to be tenuously placed on Dharam Paul v. Roshan Lal (1980) 1 R CR 503(Punj). 4. The aforesaid contention, despite some vehemence with which is was advanced, appears to us patently not well-conceived. A bare look at the 21 section of this short statute in general and to the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 in particular would make it manifest that it is only for the very limited purposes specified in these two .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

so long as it does not violate the fundamental principles of judicial enquiry or the principles on natural justice." And again in the recent Division Bench judgment reported as Raghu Nath v. Romesh Duggal AIR 1980 PNH 188 after an examination of the issue in some depth it has been observed as follows (at pages 190-191 of AIR):- "From the aforementioned history and the provisions of the present and the preceding rent legislation, it appears to be self-evident that apart from the larger purpose of restricting rents and giving special protection to the tenants the specific intent of the legislature was to provide a special and expeditious procedure for the disposal of the matters under the Act. The jurisdiction for the determination .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

unable to see any such implicit obstacle in his way in this context either in the Act itself or on larger principle. Merely because the Act does not expressly provide at all for the framing of issues or trying any one of them as a preliminary one cannot be a ground for assuming even remotely that it bars the latter procedure. In this context, it is again apt to recall the view in Ram Dutta Gupta's case 1976) 78 PLR 791(supra) that even the very framing of issues is not compulsory for the Rent Controller when exercising jurisdiction under the closely analogous provision of the Haryana Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1973. Even a bird's eye view of the provision of the Act makes it manifest that the present Act is not a procedural statute .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ollowing observation in the said judgment would be a clear pointer to the contrary:- "**** Furthermore, no request was made to treat issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue at the time of framing of the issues. Only when the witnesses of the tenant had come to court to make their statements, the application was filed, obviously, with a view to delay the proceedings. It was within the discretion of the Rent controller to treat issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue or not. He has exercised his jurisdiction and given cogent reasons for reaching the conclusion. These reasons cannot by any stretch of imagination, be termed as perverse. This order has not occasioned perverse, This order has not occasioned failure of justice or caused any irreparable .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||