SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Ori) 21

High Court Of Orissa
S. K. Ray And P. K. Mohanti, JJ.
NIRMALA BEN PATEL - Appellant
Versus
INDERSINGH BAGI - Respondent
Original Jur. Case 1450  Of  1975
Decided On : 03/30/1977

Advocates Appeared:
Laxmidhar Rath, R.N.SINHA, S.C.MOHAPATRA

The appellate authority under the Orissa House rent Control Act, 1967 has no power to remand the case to the controller for a fresh decision.

Headnote:

HOUSE RENT CONTROL ACT - REMAND - JURISDICTION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - NO POWER TO REMAND CASE TO CONTROLLER FOR FRESH DECISION - ORDER OF REMAND IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS QUASHED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa House rent Control Act for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from a house alleging that she required the same for her personal occupation. The case was posted to 19-10-74 for hearing, On that day opposite party No. 1 applied for adjournment which was rejected by the learned House Rent Controller and an order of eviction was passed ex parte. Opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Chief judicial Magistrate (opposite party No. 2) and prayed for remanding the case to the House Rent Controller for giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. After hearing the parties the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur came to the findings that though the case was not covered by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code yet in exercise of his inherent powers he could remand the case for fresh disposal. Upon such finding he remanded the case to the House Rent Controller for fresh disposal.

Finding of the Court:

The appellate authority under the Orissa House rent Control Act, 1967 has jurisdiction only to make such further enquiries as it thinks fit and decide the appeal but has no power to remand the case to the controller for a fresh decision.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority under the Orissa House rent Control Act, 1967 has the power to remand the case to the controller for a fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 13 (2) of the Orissa House rent Control Act, 1967 provides that the appellate authority shall send for the record of the case from the Controller and after perusing such record, hearing the parties and after making such further enquiries, as he thinks fit, shall decide the appeal. 2. The language employed in section 13 of the Act is that the appellate authority after perusing the record, hearing the parties and after making such further enquiries, as he thinks fit, shall decide the appeal. 3. The word 'decide' means 'settle (question, issue, dispute) by giving victory to one side; give judgment (between, for, in favour of, against); bring, come, to a resolution'. 4. Dismissing the appeal for non-appearance is not deciding the appeal. 5. Order 41 of the Code of civil Procedure would not be applicable to appeals under the Orissa house Rent control Act in view of the specific provision in the Act to decide the appeal.

Final Decision: The order of the appellate authority in the instant case is in excess of his jurisdiction and is vitiated accordingly. The writ petition is allowed and the order of remand is set aside. In view of the law set out above, the appellate authority shall now proceed with the further enquiry itself and decide the appeal according to law.

MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order of 'remand passed by the appellate authority under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa House rent Control Act for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from a house alleging that she required the same for her personal occupation. Opposite party No. 1 admitted that he was a monthly tenant under the petitioner in respect of the house in question, but contended that the petitioner did not require the house bona fide for her personal occupation. The case was posted to 19-10-74 for hearing, On that day opposite party No. 1 applied for adjournment which was rejected by the learned House Rent Controller and an order of eviction was passed ex parte. Opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Chief judicial Magistrate (opposite party No. 2) and prayed for remanding the case to the House Rent Controller for giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. After hearing the parties the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur came to the findings that though the case was not covered by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code yet in exercise of his inherent powers he could remand the case for fresh disposal. Upon such finding he remanded the case to the House Rent Controller for fresh disposal.

( 3 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that Section 13 of the Orissa House rent Control Act does not confer on the appellate authority all the powers under the Civil Procedure Code and that the order of remand is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that though there is no specific provision in the Act enabling the appellate authority to remand the case for fresh disposal yet the appellate authority has inherent power to remand a case for fresh disposal in cases not falling strictly within the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act, and the rules made thereunder. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act provides that an enquiry under the Act shall be of a summary nature and shall, so far as practicable, be held in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908 ). Subsection (2) of Section 12 enjoins that all proceeding under the Act shall, so far as possible, be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its institution. Section 13 makes provision for appeal and Sub-section (2) thereof provides as follows:

"the authority before whom an appeal is presented shall send for the record of the case from the Controller and after perusing such record, hearing the parties and after making such further enquiries, as he thinks fit, shall decide the appeal. "

Under Section 14 finality has been attached to the orders of the appellate authority passed under Section 13. Section 21 confers powers on the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act, according to Sub-section (2) of that section such rules may provide for (a) the procedure to be followed by the controllers and appellate authorities in the performance of their functions under this Act, and (b) the manner in which notices and orders under this Act shall be given or served. Rule 10 of the Orissa House Rent Control Rules, 1968 provides as follows:

"10. Procedure in appeal:-- On receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority shall cause a notice to be served on the respondent in Form 'd' together with a copy of the appeal petition and such notice shall be signed by the appellate authority or any subordinate officer authorised by him in this behalf. The appellate authority shall also intimate the appellant or his authorised agent to appear on the date and time referred to in Form 'd' by serving a copy of such notice on him. "

( 5 ) THE sole qu




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top