Anand Kumar Agarwal vs Chandra Bai Gael

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
P. R. Bhave for applicant; Ravindra Shrivastava for non-applicant.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) - Ss. 23-B and 23-Decided On :-provisions under - entire procedural law cannot be made applicable-proceedings are of summary nature.
        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 - O. 13. R. 2 - provision under-not applicable in proceeding before R. C. A.
        (3) Civil P. C., 1908 - O. 13, Rr.l and 2 - all documents not filed under R- 1 - provision under R. 2 are appended for filing, document which were not available initially.
        (4) Civil P. C., 1908 - O. 13, R. 2-some documents allowed to be filed-others cannot be withheld.

       ¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½&/kkjk 23[k ,oa 23?k&muds v/khu mica/k&izfdzk laca/kh laiw.kZ fof/k ykxw ugha dh tk ldrh&dkZokfg;k¡ laf{kIr izd`fr dh gSA
        ¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&vk- 13] fu- 2&mlds v/khu mica/k HkkM+k fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh ds le{k dh dk;Zokgh ls ykxw ugha gksrkA
        ¼3½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&vk- 13] fu- 1 ,oa 2&fue 1 ds v/khu leLr nLrkost Qkby ugha fd, x,&tks nLrkost izkjaHk esa miyC/k ugha Fks mUgsa Qkby djus gsrq fu;e 2 ds v/khu mica/k layXu fd, x, gSA
        ¼4½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&vk- 13] fu- 2&dqN nLrkost Qkby djuk vuqKkr fd;k x;k&vU dks jksdk ugha tk ldrkA

        The applicant is a tenant and the non-applicant is the landlord-lady. She filed an application in the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Raigarh under section 23-A of the Act against the applicant. The applicant made appearance and permission was granted to defend. At this stage, the applicant did not file documents. When the learned Rent Controlling Authority fixed the case for recording of evidence of the landlord lady On 26-9-88, this applicant filed an application under order 13, rule 2, C. P. C. on 31-8-88, After hearing the arguments, by the impugned order, the Rent Controlling Authority passed an order by which be directed document Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 to be filed by the applicant-tenant. In the impugned order, the learned Rent Controlling Authority did not permit the tenant to file documents Nos. 2,3,5,6,7.8.9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16. It is against this Older that the applicant is aggrieved and it is this order he challenges in this petition.
        Held: It appears, after going through the previsions of section 23 B and section 23-D, that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Cede have been permitted to be applied to the extent indicated therein. The provisions contained in section 23-D of the Act enacts that a summary procedure has to be followed. The intention of rule 16 framed under the Act does not appear to be that the entire procedural law contained in the Code is permitted to be made applicable by this summary proceeding. If this interpretation is accepted, then the intention of the Legislature in providing a summary proceeding for landlord-tenant litigation becomes redundant and the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority shall be as comber some protracted and delaying as in civil Courts.
        This provision (S. 23-B) indicates that whatever proceeding is provided in the Act for trial of a landlord-tenant litigation. Over and above is only the provisions of order 5 and order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure which shall be applicable mutatio mutandis i.e. regarding issue and service of summons to a defendant and summoning and attendance of witnesses to give evidence or to produce documents. This permissible application of the procedure laid in the Code of Civil Procedure is only limited to order 5 and order 16 of the Code.
        This provision (R. 16) further provides that where the procedure prescribed in the Act or Rules made thereunder do not contain any other provision, then as far as possible, the Rent controlling Authority shall be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The application of order 13, rule 2, C. P. C. in the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority is likely to turn it into a trial before the civil Court and the intention of the Legislature to provide speedy trial will be frustrated.
        The learned Rent Controlling Authority, therefore, should not have allowed any of the documents filed by the tenant to be taken on record. Even otherwise, the provisions contained in order 13, rule 1, C P. C. also enacts that the plaintiff has to file all his documents along with he plaint and the defendant has to file all his documents upon which he relies along with his written statement. Rule 2, order 13. C. P. C. has been appended simply for those situations where the documents are not available at the time of hearing and if they are available subsequently, then if a reasonable explanation is given for filing them subsequently, they Can be permitted to be taken on record. But as the Rent Controlling Authority has• permitted some of the documents to be produced by the tenant and not according permission for the rest of the documents, has contravened the spirit of the law provided in this legislation. But unfortunately, the landlord has not challenged the order of the Rent Controlling Authority before this Court. If some of the documents have been permitted to be produced, then there is no harm in permitting the rest of the documents to be produced which have been described in the list by the tenant. 1985 JLJ 793 relied on. Revision disposed of.