IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
ZAHURAUDDIN ALIAS BABU - Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR, DISTRICT JUDGE, ALMORA AND OTHERS - Respondents
C. M. Transfer Application 180 Of 1998
Decided On : 07/30/1998
TRANSFER OF CASE - RENT CONTROL ACT, 1972 - SECTION 24, C. P. C. - NOT APPLICABLE - TRANSFER APPLICATION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for transfer of Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1997, pending before the District Judge, Almora, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.). The appeal arose from proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, where the release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 24 of the C. P. C., which deals with the transfer of cases, has not been made applicable to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority or appellate or revisional authority under the Rent Control Act.
Issues: Whether the transfer application is maintainable under Section 24 of the C. P. C. in relation to proceedings under the Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the entire provisions of the C. P. C. have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act, and only specified provisions have been made applicable, which do not include Section 24 of the C. P. C. The court further held that the District Judge, under the scheme of the Act, only acts as an appellate authority and not as a civil court or a court of civil jurisdiction within the meaning of the C. P. C.
Final Decision: The court held that the transfer application filed under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act is not maintainable under Section 24 of the C. P. C. and advised the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court for the relief claimed.
( 1 ) THIS application for transfer of Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1997 has been moved under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said Rent Control Appeal is pending before the district Judge. Almora. The appeal arises out of proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and against that judgment the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act.
( 2 ) THE first question which requires consideration is whether the present transfer application is maintainable under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure? It is well-settled law that entire provisions of the C. P. C. have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act, either original or appeal or revision. Section 34 of the Act specifically provides that the District magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or any (appellate or Revising Authority) shall for the purposes of holding any Inquiry or hearing (any appeal or revision) under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely.
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath ; (b) receiving evidence on affidavits ; (c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation : (d) requiring the discovery and production of documents ; (e) awarding, subject to any rules made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any parts or requiring security for costs from any party ; (f) recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith ; (g) any other matter which may be prescribed.
( 3 ) TRANSFER of a case or of appeal is not Included in the aforesaid Clauses (a) to (g ). Rule 22 which has been framed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 34 (1) (g) of the Act further provides that the aforesaid authorities shall have the same powers as are vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :
(a) the power to dismiss an application, appeal or revision for default and to restore it for sufficient cause. (b) the power to proceed ex parts and to set aside, for sufficient cause, an order passed ex parte ; (c) the power to award costs and special costs to any successful party against an unsuccessful party ; (d) the power to allow amendment of an application, memorandum of appeal or revision ; (e) the power to consolidate two or more cases of eviction by the same landlord against different tenants ; (j) the power referred to in Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 to make any order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned.
( 4 ) IN this rule also, the matter of transfer of a case or of appeal is not mentioned in clauses (a) to (f ).
( 5 ) IT is, thus, clear from the above provisions that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the transfer of cases, has not been made applicable to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority or appellate or revisional authority under the Rent Control Act.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision rendered by Honble D. C. Srivastava, J. . In the case of Or. Ved Bhushan v. Dr. Jinendra Kumar Jain and others, 1996 (II)ARC 370, wherein the Honble Judge took the view that Section 10 (1) of the Act is applicable only to the appeals filed against an order passed under Sections 8, 9 and 9a of the Act and not to an appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act. With greatest respect to the Honble Judge. I may, however, state that the said view is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 22 of the act, as it is provided therein that any person aggrie
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.