Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sinha JJ.
Ramnath Sahani
Versus
Sm.Sukumari Sinha
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 271 of 1953 ; 272 of 1953 ;
Civil Revision No. 477 of 1953 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 25, 1953
BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1947 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - JURISDICTION OF HOUSE CONTROLLER - ORAL AGREEMENT FOR SETTING OFF REPAIR COSTS AGAINST RENT - OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the House Controller evicting him for non-payment of rent. He claimed an oral agreement to set off repair costs against rent, but the House Controller and appellate authorities rejected his claim. The petitioner filed a title suit seeking a declaration that the eviction order was illegal and sought an injunction to restrain its execution. He also filed a petition under Article 228 for transfer of the suit to the High Court and a petition under Article 226 for an appropriate writ to restrain the execution of the eviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as amended, was constitutionally valid and operative. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments that the Act violated the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, that the satisfaction of the House Controller under Sec.11 of the Act was subjective and not objective, and that the Act was unreasonable as it barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as amended, was constitutionally valid? 2. Whether the satisfaction of the House Controller under Sec.11 of the Act was subjective or objective? 3. Whether the Act was unreasonable as it barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court? 4. Whether the House Controller had jurisdiction to investigate the question of an oral agreement for setting off repair costs against rent? 5. Whether the House Controller granted the petitioner an opportunity to produce oral evidence and necessary documents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act was constitutionally valid as it was passed in the interests of tenants and did not violate the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the satisfaction of the House Controller under Sec.11 of the Act was objective and not subjective, as the Act provided for an appeal and revision to higher authorities and empowered the House Controller to summon witnesses and call for production of documents. 3. The Court held that the Act was not unreasonable as it provided a complete machinery for determining whether a tenant was liable to be evicted and allowed for appeal and revision. The Court noted that the test of reasonableness under Article 19(5) must depend on the scope, subject-matter, and context of each individual statute. 4. The Court held that the House Controller had jurisdiction to investigate the question of an oral agreement for setting off repair costs against rent as it was relevant to the main question of non-payment of rent. 5. The Court held that there was no allegation that the House Controller was asked to grant an adjournment or postponement to enable the petitioner to adduce oral or documentary evidence, and thus, the petitioner failed to establish that the House Controller did not grant him an opportunity to produce evidence.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's petitions and the civil revision petition with costs.
1. The petitioner, Ramnath Sahani, is tenant of a house located in holding No. 92, Mithapur B and C area, Patna. The opposite party, Shrimati Sukumari Sinha, is the landlord of the house. On 11-10-1952, the opposite party applied before the House Controller of Patna for evicting the petitioner on the ground that there had been non-payment of rent for September, 1952. The petitioner showed cause before the House Controller alleging that the rent for the house up to August, 1952, had been, paid and that repairs had been effected to the building to the extent of Rs.52-6-0. The petitioner claimed that there was an oral agreement between him and the landlord that repairs would be made to the building and the cost would be set off towards the amount of rent due. The House Controller did not accept the case of the petitioner that there was an oral agreement between the landlord and the tenant or that repair work to the extent of Rs. 52-6-0 had been effected. The House Controller found! that there was non-payment of rent on the part of the petitioner, and passed an order of eviction.
An appeal was taken by the petitioner to the Collector against the order of the House Controller, but the appeal was dismissed. An application in revision was filed before the Commissioner, but that application was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a title suit in the Court of the Munsif at Patna for a declaration that the order of the House Controller was illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also asked for an order of injunction, pending the hearing of the suit, restraining the opposite party from taking out execution of the order of the House Controller. On 21-5-1953, the Munsif refused to grant temporary injunction. An appeal was preferred against that order in the Court of the District Judge. An ad interim injunction was granted, in the first instance, by the District Judge. After hearing the parties, the Additional District Judge, to whom the case was transferred, vacated the order of ad interim, injunction.
2. Civil Revision No. 477 of 1953 is preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 4-6-1953, refusing to grant temporary injunction. Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 271 of 1953 is an application made on behalf of the petitioner under Article 228 of the Constitution for transfer of the title suit to the High Court on the ground that it involves substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 272 of 1953 is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ "restraining or prohibiting the opposite party from executing the orders of the House Controller dated 6-1-1953" on the ground that the order of the House Controller was beyond his competence and jurisdiction.
3. It would be convenient to deal with Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 272 of 1953 in the first instance. The main question argued related to the constitutional validity of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as amended by various Amending Acts, including Bihar Act 5 of 1953. The argument on behalf of the petitioner was :
(1) that the Bihar Legislature had no power to create the office and jurisdiction of the House Controller;
(2) that the Bihar Act 5 of 1953 could not revive and re-enact the Act of 1947 which had already expired; and
(3) that the Bihar Act 5 of 1953 was constitutionally invalid since the legislative authority was exercising judicial power.
All these arguments were examined by this Bench in -- Kedarnath Gupta V/s. Nagendra Narayan Sinha, AIR 1954 Pat 97 (A) in which judgment was pronounced on 4-8-1953- All the arguments were rejected as unsound, and it was held that the Bihar Act 3 of 1947, as amended by the various Amending Acts, was constitutionally valid and operative.
4. Mr. B. C. Ghosh nevertheless took an additional point in this case. The contention of learned Counse
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
