Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1714 (PNJ)

Madan Lal v. Lachhman Dass And Others

2009-10-05

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2009
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by plaintiff whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the courts below on the ground of limitation. 2. The appellant was a tenant on a shop which was covered by Bapora Gate Development Scheme framed by the Improvement Trust, Bhiwani under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, as applicable to Haryana. The possession of the shop was surrendered on 25.2.1970. The appellant filed application under section 13(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to Haryana on 31.8.1970 for restoration of the possession of the shop, claiming that after reconstruction, the shop was required to be returned to the tenant. The application was accepted by the Rent Controller on 5.6.1973 which order was affirmed by the appellate authority on 4.11.1974. However, on further proceedings in this Court, the plea of jurisdiction raised by the landlord was upheld vide order dated 18.7.1980. The said judgment is reported as Lachhman Dass and another v. Madan Lal, 1981 PLR 40. It was held that since the appellant had not been evicted under the provisions of the Rent Act, provisions of section 13(4) of the Act could not be invoked. SLP against the said judgment was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 17.11.1982. In the meanwhile, the landlord sold the shop. 3. The appellant, thereafter, filed suit for possession on the basis of previous possession. Issues framed, inter-alia, were whether the plaintiff had relinquished the tenancy and voluntarily handed over vacant possession and whether he had any cause of action against the landlord. However, only issue which has been decided by the courts below was issue of limitation (Issue No.10). The appellant invoked provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude the time spent in the previous round of litigation but the said plea was rejected. The lower appellate Court observed :- "The plea taken by the plaintiff-appellant that the time taken by him from 31.8.1970 to 17.11.1982 should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is without any force because the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings, which were taken under the provisions of the Rent Control Act." 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. 5. Substantial question of law proposed on behalf of the appellant is whether "another civil proceedings" would exclude proceedings under the Rent law, as held by the Courts below. This question clearly arises for consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in Pritam Kaur v. Sher Singh, 1983 PLJ 442, for the view that even proceedings before revenue authorities could be covered by section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and, thus, proceedings under Rent law are also covered. Section 14 is not limited to proceedings in civil court. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is also unable to dispute the legal position that proceedings under the Rent Control law will be covered by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. He, however, submits that proceedings taken by the appellant were not bona fide as the appellant had not been evicted in rent proceedings as to entitle the appellant to invoke Section 13(4) of the Rent Act. 8. Undoubtedly, the plea taken by the respondent cannot be disputed to the extent that Section 13(4) could not have been invoked. The appellant had not been evicted under the provisions of the Rent law. Infact, this issue is conclude against the appellant by inter-partes judgment of this Court in Lachhman Dass (supra), against which SLP has been dismissed. However, the fact remains that a litigant could have been misled by legal advice, particularly when two courts allowed his claim and thus, the plaintiff could be held to be acting in good faith on an erroneous legal advice. In any case, the courts below have rejected the plea of applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act by holding that proceedings under the Rent law were not civil proceedings, which proposition cannot be sustained in law. 9. The question proposed is answered in favour of the appellant to the effect that rent proceedings have to be treated as civil proceedings for purposes of section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is not necessary to comment on any other issue at this stage as reversal of the finding of the courts below on this preliminary issue may call for a fresh decision on all other issues. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgments and decree of the courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgments and decree of the courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on 21.12.2009. Appeal allowed.