'Strange', Punjab & Haryana High Court Flags Conflicting Judgements Passed By Authority For Same Property Between Same Parties In One Day
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has flagged a "strange" case where the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed conflicting judgements with respect to same property between same parties on the same day.
It was brought to the Court's notice that the Appellate Authority on the same day has given two conflicting orders - in one, on the same very grounds, ejectment has been ordered and in the other, on the same very grounds, the appeal preferred by the landlord dismissing his ejectment application has been rejected.
Justice Alka Sarin said, " In the present case, strangely the Appellate Authority before whom four eviction cases were listed pertaining to the very same property, has passed conflicting judgments qua the same very property and between the same parties. It is incomprehensible as to how an Authority who is dealing with the cases simultaneously on the same date can pass conflicting judgments in cases between the same party and pertaining to the same premises on the same grounds."
The dispute pertains to a commercial property in Chandigarh. The landlord had filed two eviction petitions in 1998, alleging subletting and change of user, which were allowed by the rent controller – an authority handling disputes between landlords and tenants – in 2011. The orders were challenged by the tenant, but the appellate authority, on January 31, 2015, dismissed the appeals.
The landlord had separately filed two more eviction petitions in 2001, which were dismissed by the rent controller in 2014. On January 31, 2015, the appellate authority dismissed the landlord's appeals by passing contradictory orders.
After examining the submissions, the Court highlighter the conflicting judgements passed by the Appellate authority, it however refrained itself from commenting on the conduct of the Appellate Authority.
"Keeping in view the glaring facts, as noted above, the impugned orders of the common date i.e. 31.01.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority...are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the successor Appellate Authority concerned for a decision afresh on merits without being influenced by the findings returned by the predecessor Appellate Authority in the impugned orders," the Court said.
The plea was accordingly disposed off.
Iqbal Singh v. SS Gill (deceased) through LRs & Anr
Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner in CR Nos.1841 & 1842 of 2015.
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate with Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner in CR Nos.2278 & 2279 of 2015 and for the respondent in CR Nos.3834 & 3836 of 2016.
Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioners in CR Nos.3834 & 3836 of 2016, for the respondents in CR Nos.1841 & 1842 of 2015, CR Nos.2278 & 2279 of 2015.