Law: Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Section: 34

 Summary — Legal Core Points Issue: Whether the Rent Controller could set aside an already-executed ex-parte ejectment order through an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., despite the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Allegation: Respondent No.3 claimed the ejectment order was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and wrong description/identity of the property. Key Evidence: A Local Commission/GPS demarcation found that the property from which possession was delivered was different in location and measurement from the property described in the ejectment proceedings. The report also raised questions about the applicants' ownership. Maintainability of Section 12(2): The Court held that the Rent Controller can entertain Section 12(2) principles where an order is alleged to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, despite the general exclusion of C.P.C. under Section 34 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Legal principle: Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings. An order obtained through fraud cannot become immune merely because it has already been executed and possession has been delivered. Important distinction: Section 12(2) cannot be used merely as an alternative appeal/revision against an ejectment order. It applies where the challenge concerns fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or similar defects affecting the validity of the order itself. Execution: Delivery of possession does not cure a jurisdictional defect or validate an order obtained through fraud. Rent Controller's jurisdiction: Because the dispute had developed into a serious title/ownership/possession dispute, it went beyond the limited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Article 199: The High Court found no jurisdictional defect, patent illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the decisions of the lower forums. Constitutional jurisdiction is supervisory, not a substitute for an appeal. Final decision: The Constitutional Petition was dismissed in limine. The orders setting aside the ejectment order were maintained, but the parties were left free to approach the competent Civil Court for determination of title,…