Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.P. NAIK, J.
Krishna Rao
Versus
Waman Rao
C. Revision No. 231 of 1961
Decided On: 28.8.1961
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (M.P.) – S. 12 – order passed by District Judge in appeal–is revisable by the High Court under section 115, CPC–import of the word 'final'.
(3) Words and phrases–'final'–import of the word–it bars appeal but does not bar a revision.
An order passed by the Additional District Judge in an appeal under section 12 of the Act, against order of Rent Controlling Authority is revisable by the High Court under section 115 of the Cede of Civil Procedure. 1954 MPLJ 195 dissented from. 1961 JLJ 253 and 1963 JLJ 163 followed.
(Para 6)
According to section 2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court of District Judge, becomes synonymous; with the 'District Court'. Under section of the Code, the District Court has been made subordinate to the High Court though section 4 has provided that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise effect any special or local law etc.
(Para 9)
The only words of limitation contained in section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, are that the decision of the appellate Court shill be 'final'. The use of the word 'final' does not exclude the power of revision, only further appeal is barred. 1961 JLJ 253 and 1954 MPLJ relied on.
(Para 11)
The Court of District Judge, when hearing an appeal under section 12 of the Act against order of the Rent Controlling Authority in a suit under sub-section (4) of section 9, does not exercise any 'special jurisdiction' and consequently, being a Court subordinate to the High Court, its decision is open to revision by the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Case-law discussed.
(Para 11)
(4) Civil P.C. 1908 – S. 11–principles of res judicata – apply to proceeding before the Rent Controller–prior decree of eviction in a civil suit–proceeding before Rent Controller for fixing fair rent–becomes infructuous.
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (MP) – S. 9–suit for eviction decreed by the Civil Court – Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to fix fair rent–relation of landlord and tenant terminated–eviction decree.
The principle of res judicata is much wider than the term of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore recourse may properly be had to the general principle of the doctrine of estoppel by record. 27 MPLC 149, 28 MPLC 224, 35 MPLC 26, 58 I.A. 158 and 159 I.A. 247 relied on.
Consequently, the judgment and decree of a Civil Court if given in a suit decided earlier shall operate as res judicata in the suit before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of fair rent.
(Para 23)
The jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority to determine fair rent depended on the parties continuing to have the relationship of landlord and tenant so that there was a liability of the non-applicant to pay rent to the applicant because, unless there was such a liability in respect of rent, the fixation of rent would have no meaning. The proceedings for fixation of rent with reference to any accommodation are initiated because the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, wishes to enhance or reduce the rent agreed upon on the ground that the rent is inadequate or excessive in comparison with the reasonable annual rent. Consequently, if an applicant ceased to be a landlord or a tenant, the person wishing to enhance or reduce the rent agreed upon disappears.
(Para 24)
Upon passing of a decree for eviction by a Civil Court the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority become infructuous.
(Para 25)
1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Third Additional District Judge, Indore, passed in proceedings for the fixation of fair rent under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act').
2. The non-applicant was a tenant of the applicant-landlord in respect of a portion of premises house No.2, Kachhi Mohalla, Indore City. On 1.6.1956, he filed a suit before the appropriate Rent Controlling Authority for the fixation of fair rent under sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Act. The applicant-landlord, however, had already served him with a notice to quit and determine his tenancy as from 1.6.1956. As the non-applicant (tenant did not vacate the premises in terms of the notice, be also filed a civil suit for ejectment on 24.6.1956, wherein he also claimed damages for use and occupation of the accommodation for the period that the non-applicant would continue to be in its occupation after the determination of his tenancy. The suit for ejectment was decreed in favour of the applicant-landlord on 3.2.1958, wherein he was also awarded damages for use and occupation from 1.6.1956 to the date of the landlord obtaining possession of the accommodation. The non-applicant in consequence vacated the suit premises by the end of January 1958 and also deposited in Court the entire amount of mesne profits and costs awarded against him by the aforesaid decree.
3. On 13.3.1959, the applicant-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority in proceedings pending against him for the fixation of fair rent under sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Act praying that on the determination of the non-applicant's tenancy as from 1.6.1956 by the decree for ejectment, the proceedings before it became infructuous and might be dismissed as such. The rent Controlling Authority agreed with the contention of the applicant-landlord and dismissed the non-applicant's suit as infructuous. Against the aforesaid dismissal the non-applicant (tenant) went up in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, under section 12 of the Act on the ground that he had continued in possession of the premises in question till 22.3.1959 and was, therefore, liable to pay rent or mesne profits till that date, so that he had continued to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act till that date and was consequently entitled to get a fair rent determined in the suit by him, which could not be dismissed as infructuous. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Rent Controlling Authority, inter alia, holding:–
(1) That it had not been established that the applicant-landlord had obtained a decree for eviction and mesne profits as alleged by him, so that tenancy of the non-applicant (tenant) had stood determined as from 1.6.1956.
(2) That even if it be granted that such a decree had been passed, it could not operate as res judicata in the Court of the Rent Controlling Authority, nor could it take away its jurisdiction to determine the fair rent.
(3) That the question, whether the non-applicant-tenant's tenancy had been determined by the notice to quit ought to have been decided by the Rent Controlling Authority itself; and that in any case, on the termination of the contractual tenancy as from 1.6.1956, the tenant continued to be statutory tenant, which could only be determined under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.
4. The applicant-landlord challenges the aforesaid decision in this revision which has filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the order of the Additional District Judge passed by him as an appellate authority under section 12 of the Act.
6. Formerly, in the High Court of Madhya Bharat, the view was that the decision of the District Judge passed in appeal under the pr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
