Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1198 (PNJ)

Malkiat Rai v. Bachan Singh

2014-08-20

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - The respondent-Bachan Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the ‘Act’) on 19.10.1983 seeking ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from a portion of property No. 330, Gali No. 5, Gill Road Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. 2. Despite notice, the petitioner-tenant did not appear and an exparte order of ejectment was passed against him on 01.06.1984 by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. On 03.01.1985, the petitioner/tenant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte order of eviction. The said application was contested by filing reply by the landlord and the Rent Controller framed three issues on 14.02.1985 and vide order dated 24.05.1989, the application was accepted and ex-parte ejectment order was set aside subject to the payment of costs of Rs.125/-. 3. The tenant then filed an application under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) for taking action against the landlord for tampering with the Court record. It was alleged in the application that the tenant is the resident of a portion in property No. 330, Gali No. 5, Dashmesh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana but the landlord had moved an application for his ejectment mentioning the number of the building as 331. However, landlord manipulated and in connivance with the process server, obtained report of service and tenant-petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. 4. The ejectment order was pertaining to the property No. 330 and was not with regard to the property No. 331. As per the allegations of the tenant, the landlord had tampered the record of the Court by changing the number of the property from 331 to 330. Thus, in the complaint filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C., it was prayed that the respondent be prosecuted for committing an offence under Sections 463 and 465 of IPC. The said application was allowed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana on 17.01.1995 against which a miscellaneous appeal was filed by the landlord. The said appeal was allowed on 17.08.2000 by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, against which the present revision petition has been filed. 5. The said application was allowed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana on 17.01.1995 against which a miscellaneous appeal was filed by the landlord. The said appeal was allowed on 17.08.2000 by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, against which the present revision petition has been filed. 5. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that against the order passed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. civil appeal was not maintainable but the learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Narang and others Vs. Veeran Narang, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 871 : 2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 736 (SC) : 2012(1) Land L.R. 296 (SC)] : 2012 AIR (SC) (Cri) 89, has submitted that the Rent Controller is not a Court and cannot make a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. which could be made only by a private party. It is thus argued that order passed by the Rent Controller on 17.01.1995 was without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time by this Court to cite judgment contrary to the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case Iqbal Singh Narang (supra) but he has fairly submitted that there is no judgment to the contrary to contest the case set up by the respondent rather he has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances as emerged, he would file a private complaint before the appropriate authority for taking action against the respondent for tampering with the Court record. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that question involved in this case that as to whether a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. could be made by the Rent Controller for initiating action under Section 340 Cr.P.C., or it could only be made by a private party is to be decided by this Court, which is no more a res-integra, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case Iqbal Singh Narang (supra) in which it has been held that Rent Controller is not a Court and a private complaint would only be maintainable. 8. Consequently, the present revision petition is found to be without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————