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
5 paragraphs · 391 wordsJ.V. Gupta, J.—This petition it diercted against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 5th September, 1985, where the Rent Controller was directed to submit a report to the effect as to what was the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buldings on the data of the presentation of the petition, i.e., 20th January, 1981.
This petition was admitted primarily on the ground that the vires of Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, were challenged Even on the last date of hearing, i.e , )0th February, 1986, notice was issued to the Advocate-General, Haryana, for the tame reason.
At the time of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the landlord-Respondent that the tenant-Petitioner had a already moved the Supreme Court of India in CWP No. 12514/1985, dated 26th October, 1985, and he, without disclosing this fact to this Court, had got this petition admitted. It was further conteaded that the vires of the said section could not be gone into by way of this petition at ruled by the Supreme Court in A C Estates v. Sarajuddin & Co (1973) R.C.J.341 Since that petition has arisen out of the proceedings of the Rent Controller under the Act, in view of the said dictum of the Supreme Court it could not disputed that the vires of Section 4 could not be challenged in this petition. Consequently, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is surprising that the Petitioner never brought the fact of filing the writ petition by him in the Supreme Court either to the notice of his counselor this Court Without disclosing the said fact he got further proceedings stayed before the Rent Controller. Thus, it appears that the conduct of the tenant-Petitioner was not above board and he tried to over-reach the Court by concealing material facts. Consequently, the petition fails and it dismissed with costs. Costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.
The parties are directed, through counsel, to appear before the Rent Controller on 28th April, 1986. The learned Rent Controller shall submit a report within one month thereof at directed earlier by the Appellate Authority. It it further ordered that on receipt of the report, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal within two months therefrom.
