Back
1980 Supreme(Ori) 78
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.N. Misra, J.
MST. MITHI BAI - APPELLANT
Versus
AMBALAL MARU AND AMBALAL PURUSOTTAM AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Second Appeal No. 218 of 1977
Decided On : 08-08-1980
D.P. Sahu, for the Appellant; H.B. Swain, B.P. Tripathy and S.S. Swain, for the Respondent
The main legal principle established is that the Civil Court has the authority to review the proceedings of Tribunals with limited jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the law and procedures, and that if the Plaintiff was not the tenant but the owner of the property, the Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an eviction order.
Headnote:
House Rent Control Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Court to examine proceedings of Tribunals
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued for declaration of ownership of a property and challenged an eviction order issued by the House Rent Controller. Defendant appealed the decree of the Subordinate Judge.
Finding of the Court:
Both lower courts found the Plaintiff to be the owner of the property, but the Trial Court dismissed the suit based on lack of jurisdiction, while the Appellate Judge reversed the decree, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. The Appellate Judge's decision was based on the principle that the Civil Court is entitled to examine the proceedings of Tribunals with limited jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the law and procedures.
Issues: The issues included whether the Plaintiff was the tenant of the Defendants and whether the procedures for eviction had been followed. The main questions were the jurisdiction of the House Rent Controller and the validity of the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Civil Court has the authority to review the proceedings of Tribunals with limited jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the law and procedures. It was established that if the Plaintiff was not the tenant but the owner of the property, as found by the lower courts, the House Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an eviction order.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the Appellate Judge's decision that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to review the proceedings and that the Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order.
JUDGMENT :
R.N. Misra, J. - It is a Defendant's appeal assailing the reversing decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Titilagarh.
Plaintiff sued for declaration that he was the owner of the property a house and the order of eviction passed u/s 7 of the House Rent Control Act by the House Rent Controller was not binding on him He pleaded that by virtue of a certificate sale and his purchase, title in the disputed property had passed on to him.
2. Defendants supported the order of the Controller and maintained that the suit was not maintainable. Several issues were framed in the suit Including issue No. 5 which dealt with the question of acquisition of title by the Plaintiff in respect of the disputed house.
3. Both the Courts below had found that the Plaintiff had become the owner of the property by virtue of the certificate sale. Notwithstanding this finding, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the question of want of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the learned Appellate Judge reversed the decree holding that the Civil Court bad jurisdiction.
4. Two questions arose in the suit. Viz., (i) whether the Plaintiff was not the tenant of the Defendants and, therefore, the House Rent Controller bad no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and (ii) whether the procedures laid down by law had been followed so as to authorise the Controller to pass a valid order of eviction.
5. It is the settled law in this country that the Civil Court is entitled to examine the proceedings of Tribunals with limited jurisdiction to find out whether such Tribunals have acted in accordance with law and the procedures laid down in regard to their own proceedings. The dictum laid down by Privy Council in the case of AIR 1940 105 (Privy Council), had been repeatedly followed in several cases of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India and is a proposition no more open to dispute. The learned Appellate Judge rightly relied upon the principle in reversing the decree of the Trial Court. Once it is found as a fact that the Plaintiff was not the tenant, the Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and if he did, it was an act beyond his jurisdiction open to be set right by the Civil Court. In view of the concurrent finding that the Plaintiff was not the tenant but the owner of the property having acquired it by Court auction sale, the Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. I do not think it is necessary, once such a finding is reached, to examine whether there had been valid notice in the house rent control proceeding and for want of notice, the present Plaintiff was entitled to assail the order of eviction. The appellate Court has taken a right approach to the matter and its judgment is not open to attack.
6. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no order for costs.
Final Result : Dismissed
