CIVIL REVISION NO.2799 OF 2003 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 24, 2008 Brija Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS Gore Lal through his L.Rs ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Amardeep, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Brija Lal filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, for eviction of respondent-tenant, Gore Lal (since deceased) from MIG (H) Flat of Punjab Housing Board Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that he is the owner and landlord of flat mentioned above, which was rented out to late Gore Lal on payment of Rs.900/- per month as a rent. The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent on the CIVIL REVISION NO.2799 OF 2003 :{ 2 }: ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.3.1993. Further plea is that the respondent had changed the user of demised premises by way of converting the front room into a shop whereas the demised property is a residential premises and that the petitioner required the same for his own bonafide use and other members of the family. Apart from other submissions, the respondents herein raised a preliminary objection that the demised premises was allotted by the Punjab Housing Development Board to the petitioner and that the petitioner has not produced any record of the ownership. Reference is made to Section 95 of the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 to say that applicability of the provisions of the Rent Act are prohibited. Otherwise, it was admitted that the demised premises had been let out to the respondent by the petitioner. He, however, disputed the rate of rent, which according to him, was Rs.600/- per month instead of Rs.900/- per month, as claimed by the petitioner. The rent was tendered for a period from 1.3.1994 to 31.5.1994 @ Rs.900/- per month in order to avoid the ejectment. The other averments made in the petition were denied. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent?OPA 2. Whether the tender is short and invalid? OPA 3. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the demised premises from residential to non-residential? CIVIL REVISION NO.2799 OF 2003 :{ 3 }: 3A. Whether the premises in dispute are bonafide required by the petitioner for his own use and for the use of his family members? OPA 3B. Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the present petition as detailed in the preliminary objection? OPR 4. Whether the rate of rent is Rs.900/-? OPA 5. Whether the rate of rent is Rs.600/- p.m.? OPR 6. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises? OPA 7. Relief.” The issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was taken as a preliminary issue to be decided first. The Rent Controller held that he would have jurisdiction to decide the rent application. Having so held, he went on to decide the remaining issues. The Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner except for Issue No.3, which related to the change of user of the demised premises from residential to non-residential. This issue was decided against the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal against the same and the Appellate Court, by relying upon the judgment of Damyanti Bhalla and another Vs. Pritpal Singh, 1999 HRR 464 has held that the Rent Controller would not have any jurisdiction to decide the rent petition. In Damyanti Bhalla's case (supra), the property in dispute was a dwelling unit situated in Sector 44A, Chandigarh, which was built by Chandigarh Housing Board CIVIL REVISION NO.2799 OF 2003 :{ 4 }: under the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1970. This dwelling unit was a part of the demised property and had been allotted to the petitioner in the said case. As per the terms of the allotment, ownership rights still vested with Chandigarh Housing Board. It was held that provisions of the Rent Act will not apply. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the short point involved in this case is as to whether the impugned order can be sustained on the basis of Damyanti Bhalla's case (supra). Counsel has drawn my attention to the Full Bench case of Ajay Kashyap Vs. Smt.Mohini Nijhawan, 2004 (1) RCR 349, to point out that the case of Damyanti Bhalla (supra) has been specifically over-ruled by the Full Bench decision of this Court. It has been held that allotment of a house by Housing Board on hire-purchase basis relationship between the Board and its allottees would be that of an owner and its tenant-Allottee has a right to sub let and tenant of allottee will be governed by Rent Act. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Messrs Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. D.C.Patel, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 16 is distinguished by the Full Bench in the case of Ajay Kashyap (supra). In fact, this Court in Damyanti Bhalla (supra) has mainly relied upon the case of Messrs Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the legal position that would emerge from the law laid down by Full Bench decision of this Court. Since the Appellate Court had decided the jurisdiction of CIVIL REVISION NO.2799 OF 2003 :{ 5 }: the Rent Controller to deal with the rent petition only on the basis of law laid down in the case of Damyanti Bhalla (supra), which has been over-ruled, the impugned order, as such, can not sustain. The necessary consequence is that the appellate order can not be sustained and is required to be set-aside. It is so ordered. The order passed by the Rent Controller shall stand restored. Even the Appellate Court has otherwise up-held the findings of the Rent Controller on the remaining issues. Respondents are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of this order. Respondents shall also pay all the arrears of rent due. The present revision petition is accordingly allowed. March 24, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE