C.R.No.3647 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3647 of 2009 Date of Decision : 17.11.2009 Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. M/s Ashok Singla and Ravnish Bansal, Advocates, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.3.2009, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for direction to the defendant to give specimen writing and signatures, was declined. The plaintiff, a tenant has filed a suit for recovery of the rent allegedly paid in excess in rent proceedings to avoid his eviction. In the said suit, the plaintiff has produced certain receipts in support of his stand that the rent has been paid. The defendant has denied his signatures on the said receipts, which led to the filing of the present application. Learned trial Court declined the application for the reason that in rent proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, 1949, the petitioner was given opportunity to produce hand-writing/finger print expert, but such expert was not examined. Thus, the receipts produced by the plaintiff were not proved. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted C.R.No.3647 of 2009 2 to reopen the case and the issues already decided between the parties cannot be permitted to be reagitated. It is the said order, which is challenged by the plaintiff in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in Amar Singh and another Vs. Dalip 1981 P.L.J. 539, to contend that the findings of the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, 1949, are not binding on the Civil Court as the Rent Controller is a Court of limited jurisdiction. Such orders will not operate as res judicata as the findings recorded by the said Tribunal is only for the purpose of deciding the lis under the aforesaid Act and not the question which arises before the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to para 18 of the judgment to contend that Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure refers to that the decision of the Civil Court of limited jurisdiction, which would operate as res judicata, but the orders of the Tribunals or Courts created under the Statutes are not the Courts of limited jurisdiction, the decision of which will not operate as res judicata in civil proceedings. In view of the said fact, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff has a right to prove the payment of rent independent of the findings recorded by the Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the issue of rent and its payment are the issues which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Since in rent proceedings, the petitioner has not obtained any categorical finding in C.R.No.3647 of 2009 3 respect of payment of rent, therefore, the plaintiff cannot reagitate the issues before the Civil Court. It is further argued that the plaintiff has tendered rent on the first date of hearing and that the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove the receipts before the Rent Controller, therefore, the plaintiff is estopped to rely upon the receipts before the Civil Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. The question of payment of rent or rate of rent are the questions, which are raised before the Rent Controller to determine the question whether the tenant is liable to be evicted. The payment of rent on the first date of hearing by the tenant is to avoid the eviction. However, such tender does not conclusively lead to an inference that the tenant was in arrears and, therefore, the rent has been paid. The fact remains that the receipts produced before the Rent Controller were not proved. Even if a finding is recorded by the Rent Controller in respect of such receipts in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, the decision of the special Tribunal created under the Statues is only for the purpose of deciding the rights of the parties arising out of that Statute alone. The Civil Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and all questions between the parties are liable to be decided by the Civil Court alone. Therefore, even if the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove the receipts before the Rent Controller, the such receipts can be examined by the Civil Court independent of the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. In view of the above, the order passed by the trial Court C.R.No.3647 of 2009 4 declining the application, suffers from patent illegality or irregularity and, thus, cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the said order is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 17.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE