Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 202 (CHH)

KANTI PRASAD RATHOR v. GUNWANTIN BEN TANK

2007-03-09

DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2007
ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.6.2001 passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur in case No. 16/90 (8), year 1996-97 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal has rejected the application of the applicant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. 2. The applicant has preferred this revision under Section 23-E of M.P. & C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and Rules, 1966 (henceforth ‘the Act’). Section 23-E sub-section 2 of the Act reads as under: “23-E. Revision by High Court - (1) * * * * (2) The High Court may, at any time “suo motu” or on the application of any person aggrieved, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality. propriey or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Rent Controlling Authority, call for and examine the recod of the case pending before or disposed by such Authority arid may pass such order in revision ill reference there to as it thinks fit and save as otherwise provided by this section, in disposal of any revision under this section. the High Court shall, as far as may be, exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it does for disposal of a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Versus of 1908) as if any such proceeding of the Rent Controlling Authority is of a Court subordinate to such High Court : Provided that no power of revision at the instance of person aggrieved shall be exercised unless an application is presented within ninety days of the date of the order sought to be revised.” 3. From bare perusal of Section 23-E sub-section 2 of the Act it is evident that while disposing of any revision under this Section the High Court exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it does for disposal of revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. as if any such proceeding of the Rent Controlling Authority is of a Court subordinate to such High Court. 4. In view of proviso to Section 115 of the CPC and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surya Devi Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others1 as well as in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. 4. In view of proviso to Section 115 of the CPC and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surya Devi Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others1 as well as in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and Others2, the instant revision is not maintainable and accordingly, it is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, I.A. No. 6355/02, I.A. No. 6356/02 and I.A. No. 1933/02 stand disposed of. Revision Rejected.