Back
1985 Supreme(P&H) 86
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.P.Goyal and Pritpal Singh JJ.
Ram Krishan (Narnaul)
Versus
Santra Devi
C.R. No. 1407 of 1979,
Decided On : JANUARY 31, 1985
The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICABILITY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER HARYANA URBAN (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1973 - SECTIONS 1, 3, 16 - PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE HARYANA URBAN (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The question arose whether the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (the Act).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are indeed applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Act.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of the term "Court" in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, which includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. The court also noted that section 16 of the Act gives the authorities under the Act the same powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence as are vested in courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court further noted that rule 7 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Rules, 1976, requires the Rent Controller to record the evidence of the parties and witnesses examined on their side.
Final Decision: The court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the provisions of the Evidence Act are indeed applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Act.
Pritpal Singh, J.
1. Where the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the important question to be answered in this case.
2. The Rent Controller, Narnual, passed an eviction order against the tenant Ram Kirshan from the tenancy premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting. The tenants appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul. Against the order of the Appellate Authority the tenant filed a revision petition in this Court. One of the points urged by the respondent-landlady Smt. Santra Devi at the final hearing was that the provision of the Indian Evidence Act do not govern the proceedings before the authorities under the Act. In support of this contention reliance was placed on two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Dwarka Dass v. Smt. Ramlubhai, 1969 PLR 68 and Ram Parkash and another v. Labhu Ram, 1981(1) RCR 176 : 1981 PLR 59, wherein it had been observed that the Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Act. The Single Bench doubted the correctness of this observation in the said two judgments and opined that this view requires reconsideration. The case was, therefore, referred to a larger Bench for consideration.
3. In order to arrive at the right answer to the above question, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 1 of this Act reads as follows :-
"Short title extent and commencement. -
This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .
It extends the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including Courts-martial, other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act (44 and 45 Vict., c 58), the Naval Disciplined Act (29 and 30 Vict., c 109) or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (XXXIV of 1934) or the Air Force Act (17 Geo. 5, c. 51) but not to affidavits presented to any Court or Officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator;
And it shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872," The definition of the term "Court" envisaged in section 1 is given in section 3 in the following terms :
"`Court includes all Judges and Magistrate, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence"
A combined reading of section 1 and definition of the term "Court" makes it apply clear that the provision of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to all judicial proceedings before the authorities which are legally authorised to take evidence, barring arbitrators and the Courts martial convened under the Acts mentioned in section 1.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent landlady contended that the authorities under the Act are not legally authorised to take evidence and so they are not covered by the definition of the term "Court" as given in the Indian Evidence Act. There is no merit in this contention which is evidently misconceived. In this connection, section 16 of the Act required attention, which is as follows :-
"16. Power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses :-
An authority exercising powers under this Act shall have the same powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witness and compelling the production of evidence as are vested in court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
It will also be useful to notice rule 7 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Rules, 1976, framed under Section 23 of the Act. This rule is reproduced below :-
"7. Procedure to be Adopted by Controller (Section 23). - (1) When an application under the Act is presented to the Controller, he shall fix the date, time and place at which the enquiry in respect of the application will be held and send a notice along with the copy of the application to each respondent in Form `A appended to these rules. (2) The Controller shall give
