The power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by statute. In the absence of such a provision, a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own orders.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - C.P. BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSE 21(1) AND 21(2)(A) - REVIEW OF ORDERS - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLER - RENT CONTROLLER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW HIS OWN ORDERS - POWER OF REVIEW CONFERRED ONLY ON APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I.E., COLLECTOR.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a landlord, filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to issue a quit notice to the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted the permission ex parte. The tenant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was rejected by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller then suo motu reviewed and recalled his previous orders, allowing the tenant to file a written statement.
Finding of the Court:

The Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to review his own orders as there is no provision under the Rent Control Order, 1949, conferring such power on the Rent Controller. The power of review is conferred only on the appellate authority, i.e., the Collector.
Issues: Whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to review his own orders under the Rent Control Order, 1949.
Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Control Order, 1949 does not provide any power to the Rent Controller to review its order on any ground whatsoever. Clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 provides for filing of an appeal by an aggrieved person before the Collector against the order of Rent Controller within 15 days from the date of communication of such order and sub-clause 2(a) of Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, 1949, empowers Collector with appellate authority to review its own order or the order passed by any of his predecessors in office.
Final Decision: The order passed by the Rent Controller on 21-6-1989 reviewing its orders dated 5-11-1988 and 2-5-1989 are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the original petitioner Nathu (since deceased and now represented by the legal representatives) has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 21-6-1989 (Annexure H) passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur suo motu revoking previous orders dated 5-11-1988 and 2-5-1989.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contention is that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction under the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order, 1949), to review his order suo motu or otherwise passed under the Rent Control Order, 1949.

3. The facts in brief leading to the present litigation are that the original petitioner Nathu Paraskar filed an application before the Rent Controller, Nagpur seeking permission to issue quit notice to the non-applicant Shri Ramchandra under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. It was averred by the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) that he was owner and landlord of the house bearing Corporation House No. 1242/18/042, Plot No. 18 of Rajabaksha lay-out, ward No. 9, Nagpur, after purchase of that property from one Smt. Shakuntalabai wd/o Yashwantrao Waghmare by registered sale-deed dated 2-6-1988 and the non-applicant was the tenant. The landlord averred in the application that he had a large family consisting of 4 elder sons and one daughters daughter and the accommodation available to them was not sufficient for the family and for his bona fide occupation. The premises in occupation with the tenant was described by the landlord in his application in para 3 which comprised of 3 rooms.

4. This application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order was filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller on 27-9-1988 and notice was issued to the tenant returnable on 27-10-1988. Though service was effected on the tenant before 27-10-1988, he did not choose to appear before the Rent Controller on the date fixed and the Rent Controller fixed the next date of hearing on 31-10-1988. On that day the landlord led evidence by way of affidavit and the matter was posted for orders on 5-11-1988. The Rent Controller, Nagpur allowed the application filed by the landlord and granted permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order 1949.

5. On that very day i.e. on 5-11-1988 when the ex-parte order was passed by the Rent Controller granting permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949, the tenant moved an application before the Rent Controller, Nagpur for setting aside ex-parte order dated 5-11-1988. It was submitted in that application that 5-11-1988 was a second chance for filing the written statement and on that day the ex-parte order was passed and, therefore, prayed for setting aside ex-parte order dated 5-11-1988. Setting aside of ex-parte order was opposed by the landlord by filing reply thereto and the Rent Controller, Nagpur vide its order dated 2-5-1989 rejected the application filed by the tenant for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 5-11-1989. While passing the order dated 2-5-1989 the Rent Controller observed that the tenant has failed to explain sufficient reasons in his application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The Rent Controller also observed that neither the application was supported by any affidavit nor cogent reasons showing that he was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the written statement or his appearance before the Rent controller on 5-11-1988 or 27-10-1988 have been made in the application.

6. It appears that after the order was passed, by the Rent Controller on 2-5-1989 rejecting the application filed by the tenant for setting aside ex-parte order, the Rent Controller suo motu took up the matter and passed the impugned order dated 21-6-1989 after

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis