Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Purushottam Ramlal Shukla, is the landlord of premises at Dharampeth, Nagpur, comprising two rooms admeasuring 22 ft. X 33 ft. let out to the respondents for business purposes. On 18.01.1991, the landlord initiated proceedings under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (Rent Control Order) before the Rent Controller. On 29.03.1993, the Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice. The tenants filed an appeal under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order along with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected on 28.05.2001, and the review application was dismissed on 30.08.2004. The tenants challenged these orders in Writ Petition No. 5941 of 2004, which was disposed of on 10.02.2005 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The Additional Collector, Nagpur, by order dated 24.11.2006, allowed the appeal, holding that the landlord was ineligible for permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) and remanded the proceedings to the Rent Controller for fresh inquiry under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v). The landlord challenged this order in the present writ petition. The High Court held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to remand the matter for inquiry under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (v) as those grounds were not part of the appeal and the landlord's application under Clause 13(3)(vi) was maintainable. The court set aside the remand order and directed the Rent Controller to consider the application under Clause 13(3)(vi) afresh.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority - Scope of Remand - Clause 21 of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - The appellate authority under Clause 21 cannot remand the matter for fresh inquiry on grounds not raised or considered earlier, especially when the landlord's application under Clause 13(3)(vi) was not part of the original proceedings. The Additional Collector exceeded jurisdiction by remanding for inquiry under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (v) after holding the landlord ineligible under sub-clause (vi). Held that the remand order was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside (Paras 5-7). B) Rent Control - Maintainability of Application - Clause 13(3)(vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - The landlord's application under Clause 13(3)(vi) for permission to evict on ground of bona fide need for reconstruction was maintainable even though earlier proceedings under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) had been initiated. The Rent Controller had not considered the application under Clause 13(3)(vi) on merits. Held that the matter should be remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration of the application under Clause 13(3)(vi) only (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to remand the proceedings for fresh inquiry under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) after holding the landlord ineligible under Clause 13(3)(vi), and whether the landlord's application under Clause 13(3)(vi) was maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated 24.11.2006, and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration of the landlord's application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Clause 13(3) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Clause 21 of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- Res judicata
- Jurisdiction of appellate authority
- Scope of remand
