Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1962 DIGILAW 108 (MP)

State v. Gulabkhan

1962-05-04

N.M.Golvalker

body1962
ORDER 1. This is a reference under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge, East Nimar Khandwa, recommending that the initial order dated 3-10-1961 as also the subsequent order dated 13-11-1961 of the Rent Controlling Authority, the former in case No. 14 of 60-61 and the latter presumably in execution of the order therein, be set aside. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has reported the case in these circumstances. Non-applicant No. 1 Gulabkhan is the landlord while the non-applicant No.2 Sk. Abdulla is his tenant. As the said landlord had removed certain tin sheets from the premises in occupation of the said tenant and thereby had deprived him to some extent of the essential services enjoyed by him in respect of the accommodation in his occupation, a suit was filed by him under section 8 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act of 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act) before the Rent Controlling Authority concerned, complaining of the same and claiming compensation. After due enquiry the Rent Controlling, Authority accepted the complaint and ordered the landlord to repair the damaged Balli and to restore the tin sheets within three days. However, the claim of the tenant for award of compensation was rejected. But the Rent Controlling Authority did not stop at that. It further ordered that in the event of default to comply with the order, for each day's default after the expiry of three days the landlord shall pay to the tenant Rs.10 per day. This order of imposition was expressly stated to be one under section 8 (5) of the Act. The landlord thereafter, it appears, took no steps within the stipulated period and on 1-11-1961 the tenant moved a petition for recovery of the amount that had accrued due at the rate of Rs.10 per day from the landlord. But by 11-11-1961 the landlord appears to have complied with the order of restoration of the essential services. The Rent Controlling Authority accordingly, by its order dated 13-11-1961, ordered the landlord to deposit Rs.390 for 39 days i.e. from 4-10-1961 to 11-11-1961. It is this order which was challenged by the landlord by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Judge who accepting the same has made the recommendations as stated in the beginning. 3. The Rent Controlling Authority accordingly, by its order dated 13-11-1961, ordered the landlord to deposit Rs.390 for 39 days i.e. from 4-10-1961 to 11-11-1961. It is this order which was challenged by the landlord by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Judge who accepting the same has made the recommendations as stated in the beginning. 3. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge the Rent Controlling Authority having had no powers to punish the landlord under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act no order for payment of Rs.390 could be passed. 4. Although I agree with the aforesaid opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, but in the view that I take the revision itself before him was not tenable and as such this reference is misconceived. My reasons for this are these. The Rent Controlling Authority under the Act is no doubt an inferior Court but it is inferior only to the District Judge being its appellate Court under section 12 of the Act. The Rent Controlling Authority while entertaining the application under section 8 of the Act does not function at any time as a Criminal Court. At best it could be said to function more like a civil Court rather than a criminal Court. In this view, therefore section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, would not be attracted inasmuch as it confers on the superior courts named therein revisional powers with respect to any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court and with respect to no other. The Sessions Judge, therefore, could not entertain any revision petition and make a report to this Court with any recommendations. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the two cases decided by the High Court of Madhya Bharat, Kanhaiyalal Vs. Nilambai 1954 MBLJ 195, and Maika Begum Vs. Pyarelal, 1955 MBLJ 1079, in support of his report and recommendations. In the former case no doubt it has been held by Dixit J., (as he then was) that the Rent Fixation Authority having purported to function as a criminal Court while imposing fine, it was clearly open to the High Court to interfere with his order of fine in the exercise of its criminal revisional jurisdiction. But I am unable to see how in the admittedly a civil revision before him such a view could be taken and given effect to. But I am unable to see how in the admittedly a civil revision before him such a view could be taken and given effect to. With due respect I differ from the aforesaid view. In my opinion, it is only when a Court expressly functions as a criminal Court and not simply purports to do so that it will be open to the High Court to interfere with its order in the exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction. If any contraventions of the provisions of the Act or any orders made thereunder are to be punished a different forum of a Magistrate First Class is expressly provided under section 20 of the Act and that Magistrate would impose ordinarily the punishment provided therein or if the contraventions are such as for which punishment is provided elsewhere in the Act that punishment. It will then be the order of that Magistrate First Class which would attract the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The other case of Maika Begum (supra) merely construes the meaning of the expression "Court in subsection (4) of section 6 of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan of 1950 which is similar to the section 8 of the Act. That case lays down that the powers• of imposing fine are not to be exercised by the Rent Controller. With that construction I am in respectful agreement. 7. A perusal of sub-section (5) of section 8 would further show that it merely renders the landlord liable to be punished and provides the authority who, can impose the fine, necessarily meaning thereby the Magistrate First Class before whom the matter would be taken properly under section 20 of the Act. To the same effect is the provision under subsection (6) of section 8 of the Act. 8. Thus, in the view that I have taken that the Rent Controlling Authority not being an inferior criminal Court is not amenable to the criminal revisional jurisdiction either of the Sessions Judge or of this Court Consequently the revision itself giving rise to this reference could not be entertained by the Sessions Judge and hence has reference is untenable. In fact the landlord ought to have challenged the intrial order itself of the Rent Controlling Authority imposing fine on him by going up in appeal. 9. In fact the landlord ought to have challenged the intrial order itself of the Rent Controlling Authority imposing fine on him by going up in appeal. 9. The result, therefore, is that I do not accept either the reference or the recommendations and reject it with this direction that the Sessions Judge shall return the petition to the landlord for being presented as an appeal to the proper Court i.e. District Judge who will decide the same according to law. The order of the Rent Controlling Authority is apparently without jurisdiction and the landlord may have it quashed also, if so advised by moving a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.