Back
1994 Supreme(Raj) 984
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.K.Palli, J.
M.D. Rao - Appellant
Versus
Satish Augustin & another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2729 of 1994.
Decided On : 29-11-1994
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prakash Tatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Advocate.
The scope of revision under sub-section (11) of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is limited to examining the legality or illegality of the order of ejectment, and does not extend to interlocutory orders.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EJECTMENT - RIGHT OF LANDLORD TO RECOVER IMMEDIATE POSSESSION - SECTION 16 OF THE RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION - SCOPE OF REVISION UNDER SUB-SECTION (11) - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT JUDGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlord, filed an ejectment petition against the respondent tenant under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The District Magistrate refused to grant leave to the tenant to contest the application, but the District Judge allowed a revision petition and granted leave. The District Magistrate then allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder to the tenant's claim, and the District Judge again allowed a revision petition and set aside the order. The petitioner challenged the District Judge's orders, arguing that they were wholly without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions and set aside the orders of the District Magistrate. The Court found that the scope of revision under sub-section (11) of Section 16 is limited to examining the legality or illegality of the order of ejectment, and does not extend to interlocutory orders such as the orders granting leave to contest the application and allowing the filing of a rejoinder.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions and set aside the orders of the District Magistrate. 2. Whether the scope of revision under sub-section (11) of Section 16 extends to interlocutory orders.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions because the orders of the District Magistrate were not final orders of ejectment. Sub-section (11) of Section 16 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against an order of ejectment made by the District Magistrate, and the proviso to the sub-section only allows the District Judge to call for the record and examine the legality or illegality of the order. 2. The Court held that the scope of revision under sub-section (11) of Section 16 is limited to examining the legality or illegality of the order of ejectment, and does not extend to interlocutory orders. The Court found that the Legislature intended to provide a summary procedure for ejectment of tenants, and that allowing revision petitions against interlocutory orders would defeat this purpose.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders of the District Judge, and directed the District Magistrate to proceed with the hearing of the ejectment petition and dispose of it within the time schedule provided for in Section 16 of the Act.
"16.
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or usage, a landlord who was a member of the armed forces of the Union, his war widow, or his other legal representative shall, on an application being made in this behalf, be entitled to obtain an immediate order of ejectment of the tenant from the premises let out by such member and to recover immediate possession thereof on any of the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that he has retired from service (which term shall include compulsory or voluntary retirement) -
(i) within a period of one year prior to the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1987 hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act, or, as the case may be, the date of making of such application; or
(ii) at any time prior to the commencement of the said Act subject to there being no agreement of lease in writing concerning such premises subsisting at the time of making such application and such premises having not been let out to the present tenant on or after the date of such retirement; and that such premises are required for the use and occupation of himself or his family members; or
(b) that she is the war widow of a member of the armed forces of the Union and such premises are required for the use and occupation of such war widow; or
(c) that he is a legal representative (not being a war widow) of a member of the armed forces of the Union and such member has died during the course of employment within a period of one year prior to the date of commencement of the said Act or, as the case may be, the date of making such application and that such premises are required for the use and occupation of such legal representative;
Provided that where the possession of the premises is so recovered and such premises are not occupied for a period of three months from the date of such recovery for other than bonafide reasons or are again let out within a period of three years from such date the tenant ejected from such premises shall on an application being made in this behalf to the Magistrate making the order of ejectment be entitled to the restoration of possession of such premises to him on the original terms and conditions and the landlord shall be liable to such fine not exceeding two thousand rupees as such Magistrate considers reasonable.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as conferring a right on a landlord owning in the same city or town two or more premises to recover the possession of more than one of them. The landlord shall in that case indicate the premises of which he intends to recover possession from the tenant.
(3) A certificate issued by the Head of the service in which the member of the armed forces was last employed or by is Commanding Officer to the effect that such member or his war widow or his other legal representative requires the premises for the use and occupation of himself or herself or the family members of such member on any of the grounds specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
(4)(a) Every application by
