Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Rebom Nguso S/o Late Tare Nguso – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 40 of 2023
Decided On : 07-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Arunachal Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2014 - Section 37, 30, 47(I), 33, 32, 34 - Arunachal Pradesh Tenancy Act, 2022 - Section 30 - Rental amount was enhanced - Did not turn up for renewal of lease agreement - Allowed to run business in building - Petition has put to challenge correctness of order - Vide impugned order learned EAC, has allowed respondent No.8 to run business in building premises of petitioner – In absence of power being given by any Act or Rule in that regard, learned EAC cannot assume same from outside its allocated spheres - Para 11.
Finding of the Court:
Government has not appointed ‘Rent Authority’ under Section 30 of Act of 2022 - And admittedly, earlier Act of 2014 was repealed by new Act of 2022, as per provision under Sub-Section (I) of Section 47 - In view of repelling of earlier Act of 2014, by Act of 2022 and also in view of admission of respondent authorities regarding non-appointment of ‘Rent Authority’ as per Section 30 of Act of 2022, EAC, has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint of respondent No.8 and to pass impugned order - As per administrative practice, as is being done in similarly situated matters and having been consented by parties mutually, lease deed is extended yet, same is found to be fallacious in as much as, neither Act nor any Rule have authorize EAC, to pass such an order - In absence of power being given by any Act or Rule in that regard, learned EAC, cannot assume same from outside its allocated spheres - Impugned order of learned EAC having been passed without any authority of law, stands set aside and quashed.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1-7. None appears for the respondent No. 8, though service by dasti mode could not be affected on him, as he refused to accept the notice. However A/D card, in respect of service of notice upon him returned with a report that he has received the notice and therefore, it is proposed to proceed against him ex-parte.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Sri Rebom Nguso, has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Order No. NLG/EAC/land-02/2022/38, dated 02.12.2022, passed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC), Naharlagun. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order, dated 02.12.2022, the learned EAC, Naharlagun has allowed the respondent No. 8 to run the business in the building premises of the petitioner till 31.08.2023.
3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:
4. Thereafter, the petitioner under the bona fide impression that the impugned order, dated 02.12.2022, was passed by the EAC, Naharlagun in his capacity as Controller, as per the Arunachal Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2014, preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the said Act, before the appellate authority i.e. the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar on 14.12.2022, challenging the impugned order. And thereafter, he came to know that the State Government has neither appointed any ‘Controller’ nor ‘Appellate Authority’, despite enactment of the said Act in the year 2014.
5. Thereafter, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has enacted the Arunachal Pradesh Tenancy Act, 2022, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 14.11.2022, and under Section 30 of the said Act, the State Government is to appoint a person, not below the rank of Executive Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer of the Town/City by notification, to be the ‘Rent Authority’ for adjudication of all disputes relating to rent, tenancy, etc. And Section 47(I) of the said Act, the earlier Act of 2014 was repealed and as such the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, was passed by the EAC, Naharlagun, neither in the capacity of ‘Controller’ under the Act of 2014, nor as a ‘Rent Authority’ under the new Act of 2022. And as such the impugned order, so passed, was without any a
Under Arunachal Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2014, State Government has to appoint ‘Controller’ and ‘Appellate Authority’, as per provisions under Section 32 and 34.
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
The court ruled that the provisions of the new Act cannot be applied retrospectively to orders made under the old Act, emphasizing adherence to the law as it stood at the time of the original order.
(1) Rent and Eviction – Question of title is squarely within domain of Civil Court and not Rent Authority.(2) Judicial Discipline – Doctrine of Binding Precedent helps in promoting certainty and cons....
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
