Judicial Magistrate under Section 324 of Cantonment Act has limited jurisdiction in lease rent arrears recovery; cannot examine validity of Board's unchallenged resolution modifying lockdown rent exemption from full to 50%, rendering contrary findings perverse.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL , J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed in case No.39/3 of 2023 titled as Chief Executive Officer Cantonment Board versus Mohd. Sultan Malik, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kasauli, may please be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the Magistrate may be directed to recovery the arrear of lease rent in accordance with the mandate of Section 324 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 and Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the submissions made hereinabove, in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 324 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, in terms whereof, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the private respondent before this Court is running a shop on rent which belongs to the petitioner. Cantonment Board Kasauli vide CBR No.10 dated 11.05.2020 resolved to exempt full lease rent of stall holder for lockdown period w.e.f. 22.03.2020 to 17.05.2020. Later on, the Chief Officer, Commanding in Chief issued direction to the Cantonment Board, Kasauli on 11.05.2020 that exemption be modified to the effect that instead of full exemption, the same shall be exempted upto 50% of the rent from 22.03.220 to 17.05.2020.

4. Pursuant to the said direction of the Officer concerned, Cantonment Board Kasauli on 13.07.2021 again passed a resolution and granted exemption of 50% of rent from 22.03.2020 to 17.05.2020.

5. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Cantonment Board to the present respondent on 12.07.2021 for the payment of arrears/rent.

6. As the needful was not done by the respondent, the Cantonment Board filed an application under Section 324 of the Cantonment Act to recover the said sum and in terms of the impugned order; said application has been dismissed by the learned Court below.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is per se perverse. He submitted that under Section 324 of the Cantonment Act, method of recovery of arrears of rent etc., is provided and as the petitioner had invoked this provision for the recovery of rent against the respondent and as the rent was admittedly due from the respondent to the petitioner, learned Court should have allowed the application. However, rather than doing the same, it went into the issue of the grant of exemption without having any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that, as the impugned order was per se without jurisdiction, the same was liable to be set aside on this count.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 108, titled Cantonment Board versus Pyare Lal, he argued that the arrears of rent due under a lease cannot be recovered by invoking the provisions of Section 324 of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was clear on this aspect of the matter and, in fact, Section 259 of the Old Act, (The Cantonments Act, 1924), was almost para materia with the provisions of Section 324 of the 2006 Act. Learned counsel