Bachan Singh alias Gurbachan Singh vs Malkiat Rai

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller convicting the petitioner under the Contempt of Counts Act and sentencing him to undergo three months civil imprisonment

The facts: -

The tenant/respondent filed an application u/s 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) against the landlord/petitioner for restoring electricity of meter A/c No. M-13/2076 which was cut illegally by the latter. The Rent Controller allowed the application vide order dated November 17, 1983 and directed the landlord/petitioner to remove obstructions from the stairs and also restore the electricity connection after receiving the amount which according to him had fallen to the share of the tenant/respondent. The tenant/respondent filed an application on May 5, 1984 stating that the order dated November 17. 1983 passed by the Rent Controller was not complied with by the land lord. The landlord/petitioner controverted the allegations made in the application.

The Rent Controller framed the following issues : -

Whether the petitioner Maikiat Rai has committed contempt of Court by disobeying the order dated 17-11.83 passed by Rent Controller ? OPA

Whether Bacban Singh has committed contempt of Court by disobeying the order dated 17-11-8.3 passed by the Rent Controller ? OPA.

3 Relief.

Both the issues were disposed of together. The Rent Controller found that the landlord bad not complied with the order dated 17 -11-1983 passed by the Rent Controller, He further foiled that even if the landlord had sold the disputed premises to a third person, he could still be held liable for violating the order passed by the Rent Controller and as a result of these findings he convicted and sentenced the landlord as indicated above, presumably under Contempt of Courts Act.

The order of the Rent Controller is without jurisdiction. Section 19 of the Act provides that any person contravening any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 9, sub-section (1) of Section 10 or sub-section (II) of Section 18 ibid shall be punishable with fine which will extend to Rs. 1,000/-. A private complaint can be filed u/s 19 of the Act, provided sanction of the Rent Controller is obtained before instituting it. The court before whom the complaint is filed u/s 19 of the Act will entertain it only if the conditions specified in sub section (2) of Section 19 have been complied with There is no proof that any such sanction was granted by the Rent for initiation of the proceedings by the tenant. Even otherwise, if the proceedings had been initiated u/s 19 of the Act, the Court, on being satisfied that the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 10 ibid had been contravened, could only punish the defaulter with fine, which may extend to Rs. 1.008/-. There is no provision in the Act to convict and sentence a person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 10, for a period of three months and detain him in civil prison. Under. Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Contempt Act), a High Court has the jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. The conviction under the Contempt Act can only be recorded by the High Court and by no other Court. Assuming that the Rent Controller is a Court within the meaning of Contempt Act, it could submit the papers to the High Court for trying the proceedings under the Contempt Act against the landlord/petitioner and if it was satisfied that the landlord/petitioner had committed the contempt as defined under the Contempt Act, it could convict him. No power vests in the Rent Controller to convict the landlord for committing contempt under the Contempt Act. The order of the Rent Controller is patently illegal and the same is set aside.

The petitioner is accordingly allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.