Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE AND KUPPUSWAMY, JJ.
Hari Kishan Singh and another - *Petitioner
Versus
B. Narayan and another - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 125 of 1965, C.R.P. No. 2109 of 1965, C.R.P. No. 748 of 1966, C.R.P. No. 749 of 1966, C.R.P. No. 750 of 1966 and C.R.P. No. 751 of 1966
Decided on : 08-04-1969

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.P. Ugle, Advocate for petitioner Mr. K. Satyanarayana, Advocate, Mr. M. Narasiah Advocate, Mr. G.S. Dwarkeswara Rao Advocate Mr. A. Satyanarayana Rao, for Mr. D.V. Reddipantulu Advocate M/s K. Raghava Rao and K.R. Swamy Advocates Mr. P. Seshapani, Advocate
For the Respondents:M/s G. Venkataramasastry and T. Seshagiri Rao Advocate Mr. B.K. Bhagavan for Mr. Syed Mazhar Hussain, Mr. S. Suryaprakasam, Advocate, M/s H.S. Guru Raja Rao and N. Madhusudhana Raj

The succeeding Rent controller can continue the proceedings from where they were left by the preceding Rent controller and give his decision relying on the evidence recorded by the predecessor.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - TRANSFER OF CASE - EVIDENCE - CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY SUCCESSOR CONTROLLER - APPLICABILITY OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERPRETATION OF RULES.
Fact of the Case:

In a batch of revision petitions, the common question that arose for consideration was whether a Rent controller to whose file an application under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and eviction) control Act (referred to as the Act) is transferred, may act on the evidence of the parties and witnesses examined on either side of and recorded by the Rent controller from whose file the petition has been transferred or whether he should conduct an enquiry de novo.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the succeeding Rent controller can continue the proceedings from where they were left by the preceding Rent controller and give his decision relying on the evidence recorded by the predecessor. The court interpreted rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act to mean that the controller who records the evidence and the one who passes the orders, though they may be different, are both controllers within the meaning of the Act. The court also held that the principles of natural justice are not violated when the successor Rent controller is permitted to continue the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether a Rent controller to whose file an application under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and eviction) control Act is transferred, may act on the evidence of the parties and witnesses examined on either side of and recorded by the Rent controller from whose file the petition has been transferred or whether he should conduct an enquiry de novo? 2. Whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act to mean that the controller who records the evidence and the one who passes the orders, though they may be different, are both controllers within the meaning of the Act. The court also held that the principles of natural justice are not violated when the successor Rent controller is permitted to continue the proceedings. 2. The court held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, but that in cases where the Act or the rules are silent, the relevant provisions of the C.P.C. would be applied provided those provisions are not inconsistent with the purpose and scheme of the Act.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed, but without costs.

JUDGMENT :

KUPPUSWAMY, J.

1. The Common question that arises for consideration in this batch of revision petitions is whether a Rent controller to whose file an application under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and eviction) control Act (in the judgment referred to as the Act) is transferred, may act on the evidence of the parties and witnesses examined on either side of and recorded by the Rent controller from whose file the petition has been transferred or whether he should conduct an enquiry de novo.

2. In all these cases, the Rent Controller with whom the applications were filed in the first instance recorded the evidence of the witnesses which was read over to them and signed by them. Subsequently, at various stages all the cases were transferred to the file of another Rent Controller, under rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act. Before that Controller interlocutory applications were filed Contending that he should record the evidence afresh and conduct a de novo trial. These applications were dismissed. In all the matters except in C.R.P. Nos. 125 and 2109/55 appeals were preferred against the orders of the Rent Controller to the Chief Judge, Small Causes court. The appeals were dismissed and revision petitions are filed against the said orders. In C.R.Ps. 125 and 2109/65 however, revision petitions were filed directly against the order of the Rent controller. The main Act does not contain any provision indicating the procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller in dealing with applications filed under the Act, whether they may be for fixation of fair rent or for eviction or in connection with any other matter provided under the Act. It is, however, provided under Sec. 30 of the Act that the……………Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act Under sub-sec. 2(b) of that section without prejudice to the generality of the said powers, such rules may provide for the procedure to be followed by controllers and appellate authorities in the performance of their functions under this Act. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Sec. 30 of the Act, the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control rules 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules) were made. The rules which are relevant for the purpose of considering the question before us are the following:—

8(1) When an application under the Act is presented to the controller he shall fix the date on which and the place at which the inquiry in respect of the application will be held and send notice thereof to the applicant or applicants and the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application and shall also send a copy of the application along with the notice to the respondent or respondents.

Provided that, in the case of applications for evictions filed under sub-sec. (2) or sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10 in respect of buildings of which the State Govt. or the Central Government are tenants, he shall not be bound to give such notice unless he considers such notice necessary, regard being had to the averments in the petition or any other material circumstances.

(2) The Controller shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their cases. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses, if any examined on either side and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties pass orders on the application.

(3) xxxx

Rule 22(7): The controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be shall have power to administer oaths, require the attendance of all parties concerned and of witnesses and require the production of all books and documents relating to the matters of the dispute.

(8) The Controller or the appellate authority deciding the dispute shall record a brief note of the parties and witnesses who attend, and upon the evidence so recorded, and after consideration of any documentary evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document