Civil Revision No.2843 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2843 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:16.04.2009 Raj Kapoor .............Petitioner Vs. Mohinder Singh ............Respondent Present: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. In a rent control petition for eviction, the landlord applied under Section 151 CPC for permission to raise construction as per the sanctioned plan over the tenanted premises at the second floor. Such a permission was granted by the Rent Controller and the tenant is the revision petition before this Court assailing the said order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to grant any such permission under Section 151 and the order was incompetent. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 itself does not contain any provision empowering the Rent Controller to authorize any form of construction either by a landlord or a tenant. The only occasion when Rent Civil Revision No.2843 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Controller could authorize any alteration in a building is under Section 12 where by the failure of landlord to make necessary repairs, it should be competent for a Controller to direct on an application by a tenant, after such inquiry as a Controller might think necessary that such repairs could be made by the tenant. The scheme of the section could be understood as a direction only in relation to the tenanted premises itself and not any direction other than the property which is held by a tenant under his landlord. 3. The direction given by the Rent Controller authorizing the landlord to put up a construction above the top floor cannot be sourced to any power under the Act and is without jurisdiction. The impugned order is set aside and the civil revision is allowed. The parties may have independent rights before Civil Court, if any one of the parties apprehends the infringement of the rights which the law guarantees. This is merely by way of clarification which will have no bearing to the merits of the contention in the rent control petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord contends that the petition is of the year 2007 and there is enough bad blood between parties that the petition should be disposed of early. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, I deem it appropriate to request the Rent Controller to dispose of the rent petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 16, 2009 Pankaj*