Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 143
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha, Mudholkar
BAJRANGLAL NANDLAL – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANR – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 101 of 1952
Decided on : 19-12-1952
G J Agarwal, M N Phadke, Advocates
An inferior tribunal cannot go behind the findings of a superior court and is bound to carry out its directions.
Headnote:
LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - SECTION 13(3)(VI) - SECTION 13(9) - INTERPRETATION - LANDLORD'S APPLICATION TO TERMINATE TENANCY - REQUIREMENT OF HOUSE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES - PREVIOUS APPLICATION BARRED UNDER SECTION 13(9) - WHETHER SECOND APPLICATION ALSO BARRED - ERROR OF LAW BY INFERIOR TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH ORDER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondent on the ground that he required the house for his residence and for the business he intended to start. The Rent Controller granted the application, but the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, on appeal, dismissed it, holding that the landlord's application was barred by Clause 13(9) of the Order, which barred a second application on the same grounds as a previous application that had been rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had erred in law by holding that the landlord's second application was barred by Clause 13(9) of the Order. The Court held that the first two applications made by the landlord were made under a different law, which did not allow a landlord to obtain permission to terminate a tenancy on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of 'starting' a business of his own. The Court further held that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to comply with the previous order of the Court, which had remanded the case to him for a finding on the point raised by the landlord.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord's second application was barred by Clause 13(9) of the Order? 2. Whether the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had erred in law by holding that the landlord's second application was barred? 3. Whether the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to comply with the previous order of the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the landlord's second application was not barred by Clause 13(9) of the Order, as the first two applications were made under a different law, which did not allow a landlord to obtain permission to terminate a tenancy on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of 'starting' a business of his own. 2. The Court held that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had erred in law by holding that the landlord's second application was barred, as the Court had previously remanded the case to him for a finding on the point raised by the landlord. 3. The Court held that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to comply with the previous order of the Court, as he had failed to give a finding on the merits of the point which he was asked to decide.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and directed him to decide the point again in the light of the material placed before him.
Mudholkar, J—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a landlord of a house in which he questions the correctness of the order passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Akola, rejecting his application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.
2. This petition has a little history which needs to be set out. The Petitioner purchased the house, of a. portion of which, the Respondent No. 2 is a tenant, on the 3rd August 1946. On 1-11-1946, the Petitioner made an application to the Rent Controller for permission to terminate the tenancy not only of the Respondent No. 2 but of each and every other tenant occupying the house on the grounds that he required the house for his residence and for the business which he intended to start. This application was rejected by the Rent Controller on 31-1-1947. The Petitioner made a record application to the Rent Controller on 18-6-1947. That application was also dismissed on the ground that it was based essentially on the same grounds as those on which the previous application was based. He then made a third application, and this time only against the Respondent No. 2 for terminating his tenancy. This application was considered on its merits by the Rent Controller and granted on 10-4-1951 on both the grounds set out by him. An appeal was taken from the order of the Rent Controller to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Akola. He upheld the finding of the Rent Controller to the effect that the Petitioner needed a portion of the house for his residential purposes, but he did not think it necessary to decide the question whether the Petitioner intended to start a business of his own. The Respondent No. 2 thereupon preferred a petition to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition came up before Mangalamurti J. and myself. We came to the conclusion that it was not open to the present Petitioner, who was a Respondent in. chat petition, to obtain permission of the Rent Controller for terminating the tenancy of the present Respondent No. 2, on the ground that he needed the house for his residential purposes because of the bar created by Clause 13(9) of the House Rent Control Order, 1949. We, however, held that the other ground which was urged by the Petitioner, that is, his requirement of the house for starting a business of his own, had to be enquired into. In this view, we set aside the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and remitted the appeal to him for giving a definite finding on the point raised by the Petitioner and decide the appeal in the light of that finding.
3. After the matter went up before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, he observed thus: In the application itself the Respondent stated that he had been thinking of doing a kirana business in Akola since he shifted to that town in the year 1946. There was no evidence of the landlord's intention to start a kirana shop (business) at Akola beyond his own assertion. This apart, there is another reason why the Respondent cannot be permitted to give notice to the Appellant to determine his lease on the ground that the house is needed for business purposes. The High Court has held that because of the application dated 8-6-1947 filed by the Respondent before the House Rent Controller, Akola, the present application under item (vi)(a) to Clause 13(3) of the Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 was barred by the provisions of Sub-clause (9) of that Order. A perusal of this application shows that it also contained a request for permission to determine the Appellant's lease on the ground that the accommodation was needed by the landlord for the purposes of his business. If this application which was rejected is a bar to the present application under item (vi)(a) to Clause 13(3) it, will also bar the application under item (vi)-(e) to Clause 13(3) because, of the provisions of Sub-clause (9) of Clause 13. I, therefore, find that the Res
