Supreme CourtDivision Bench

K. Sahadev vs Suresh Bir

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 6 February 1995 · Citation: AIR 1996 SC 2996 : (1995) 9 JT 297 : (1995) 7 SCALE 317 : (1996) 1 SCC 570 : (1995) 6 SCR 227 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. M. Sahai, J · N. P. Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 — Section 4
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeals Nos. 22602 Of 1994
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 431 words
1.

Delay condoned.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

This landlord''s appeal is directed against the order of remand passed by the High court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction directing the Rent Control Officer to proceed with the determination of fair rent in terms of Section 4 of the A.P. Rent Control Act (referred in brief as "the Act").

4.

In Mohd. Ataur Rehman Khan v. Mohd. Kamaluddin Ahmed a Single Judge of that court held that Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was unconstitutional. The Rent Control Officer, however, held that even though Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act was declared unconstitutional he had jurisdiction to determine the fair rent taking into account the existing circumstances of the case. The order was maintained in appeal. In further revision filed by the tenant the High court held that similar provision under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949 having been held valid and reasonable by this court a in Sant Lal Bharti v. State of Punjab the decision of the High court in Ataur Rehman case was no more a good law. Therefore, the High court issued the directions to the Rent Controller to determine fair rent in accordance with Section 4 of the Act.

5.

In our opinion the learned Single Judge in recording the finding that the decision in Ataur Rehman was no more a good law, did not act properly as unless the decision in Ataur Rehman was set aside by a larger bench the declaration given by it that Section 4 was ultra vires could not be put at naught by a decision given by this court in respect of another Act. The proper course for the learned Single Judge was to refer the matter to the division bench. In the absence of any such decision by a larger bench the section could not revive.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that in pursuance of the order passed by the High court fair rent has been determined by the Rent Control Officer without reference to Section 4 of the Act and the matter is pending in appeal. Maybe, that is not the issue as the validity of that order shall be considered by the appellate authority.

7.

In the result this appeal succeeds and the direction issued by the learned Judge to the following effect:

"The Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the determination of fair rent in terms of Section 4 of the A.P. Rent Control Act expeditiously."