Back
Judges : KOSHI,SANKARAN
Gomathi Ammal - Appellant
Versus
P.Chinnakannu Pillai - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 63 of 1953
Decided On : 10/29/1953
Advocates Appeared :
K. P. Abraham; For Appellant N. Varadaraja Iyengar; For 1st Respondent N. Kumaran Achan; For 2nd Respondent
Rent Control Proceedings - Jurisdiction - S. 9 of Rent Control Order - The Rent Controller's jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction and to pass an order directing the landlord to be put in possession of the building - The Rent Control Order does not exclude cases where the tenant has a claim against the landlord for value of improvements effected by him in the building or for amounts charged on the building - The Rent Controller has exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in respect of all building tenancies within his territorial jurisdiction excepting those expressly excluded by the two provisos to sub-s.1 of S. 9 - The Controller's jurisdiction comes to an end with the passing of an order for eviction - The Controller's jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction is not affected by the existence of a claim for value of improvements or other amounts due to the tenant - The Controller's orders have been declared final subject only to the appeal and revision specially provided for under Ss. 15 and 16 of the Rent Control Order.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller. The tenant claimed that the Rent Controller was acting without jurisdiction in ordering eviction of the tenant from the holding. The landlord had filed an application for an order to put him in possession of the building, which was contested by the tenant. The Rent Controller passed an order in favor of the landlord, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and in revision by Government. The tenant approached the court seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings passed by the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction and to pass an order directing the landlord to be put in possession of the building. The court held that the Rent Controller's jurisdiction is not affected by the existence of a claim for value of improvements or other amounts due to the tenant. The court also found that the Rent Controller's orders have been declared final subject only to the appeal and revision specially provided for under Ss. 15 and 16 of the Rent Control Order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction and to pass an order directing the landlord to be put in possession of the building, considering the tenant's claim for value of improvements and other amounts due to him.
Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Controller has exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in respect of all building tenancies within his territorial jurisdiction excepting those expressly excluded by the two provisos to sub-s.1 of S. 9. The Controller's jurisdiction comes to an end with the passing of an order for eviction. The Controller's jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction is not affected by the existence of a claim for value of improvements or other amounts due to the tenant. The Controller's orders have been declared final subject only to the appeal and revision specially provided for under Ss. 15 and 16 of the Rent Control Order.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed with costs throughout to the first counter-petitioner. Advocate's Fee Rs. 100.
1. This is an appeal against the order in O.P. No. 69 of 1951 on the file of this Court. That O.P. was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution and the relief claimed was that the records in the Rent Control proceedings in B.R.C. No. 190/1950 before the Rent Controller may be called up and that a writ of certiorari may be issued cancelling the order of eviction passed against the tenant in possession of the building in respect of which the proceedings had been started. The present is the second occasion on which the order on the O.P. has been challenged in appeal. The O.P. was dealt with by a Single Bench of this Court and the learned judge who dealt with the matter passed his first order on 1.10.1951 (KLT 639) allowing the petition and quashing the order of eviction which the Rent Controller had passed against the tenant and which was confirmed by the appellate authority and also in revision by Government. The landlord had preferred A.S. No. 937/1951 against the order allowing the O.P. In the course of the hearing of that appeal it was disclosed that the facts which the learned judge assumed to be admitted and uncontroverted and which were made the basis of his conclusion that the Rent Controller was acting without jurisdiction in ordering eviction of the tenant from the holding, were really non-existent. It had been assumed by him that the release deed taken by the landlord from the mortgagee who had let the tenant in possession of the building under a rental arrangement, had provided for payment of a sum of Rs. 800 to the tenant towards the value of his improvements to the building before his eviction. Copies of the rent deed and the deed of release in respect of the mortgage already referred to were admitted as fresh evidence in appeal and were marked as Exts. I and II and these documents unmistakably showed that the tenant was not authorised to make any improvements in the building rented out to him and that no provision was made in the release deed to pay anything to him on account of the value of improvements. In view of such a disclosure, the Division Bench which heard A.S. 937 of 1951 felt that it would be proper and desirable to send back the O.P. to the same judge who dealt with it, so that he may reconsider the matter in the light of the relevant facts as they really existed. Accordingly the order dated
1.10.1951 was set aside and the O.P. was sent back to the Single Bench for fresh hearing and disposal. Certain aspects having an important bearing on the questions raised in the O.P. had also been indicated in the order of remand. After a reconsideration of the O.P. the learned judge came to the same conclusion as before and reiterated substantially the same grounds in support of his second order also. He has taken the view that the fact that the release deed Ext. II makes provision for repayment to the tenant of the sum of Rs. 200 which he had advanced to the landlord at the time of the rent arrangement by way of security for the due payment of the stipulated rent, is itself sufficient to deprive the Rent Controller of his jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. The claim put forward by the tenant that he has effected valuable improvements to the building and that he is entitled to get the value of such improvements also before eviction, is relied on as another ground in support of the view that the Rent Controller was incompetent to entertain the landlord's application for an order to put him in possession of the building. After the O.P. was received back from the Division Bench, the learned judge allowed the petitioner to have the O.P. amended by adding a fresh ground that the Rent Controller acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to consider the grounds on which eviction was sought for without duly considering and deciding whether the denial by the tenant of the landlord's title was bona fide or not. The new ground thus allowed to be added was also relied on by the learned judge as the third gro
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
