Shri S.S. Kaushal vs Dr. K.L. Shukla

Chet Ram Thakur, J.—This is an application u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 21(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act filed by Shri S. S. Kaushal against whom Shri K. L. Shukla owner of the premises which are in the possession of the Petitioner filed an application u/s 14 of the aforesaid Act for eviction before the Rent Controller, Simla. The grounds for transfer are that the Rent Controller is proceeding with the trial of the case with post-haste inasmuch as the case was instituted only on the 2nd April, 1974 and he had been giving very short adjournments and the case came up for evidence of the Petitioner on 6-9-1974. According to the Petitioner, he apprehends that the Rent Controller would not give him a fair trial because according to his averment in para 5, the Respondent has got personal relations with the Rent Controller and that, according to him, the Respondent had publicly declared that he would see that the present Petitioner is evicted from the premises in dispute in a couple of months. He has further averred that there are a large number of cases under the Rent Control Act pending before the Rent Controller in which long adjournments are given, so much so that there are cases even which are pending for the last five years. Therefore, he prays for transfer of the case from the court of the Rent Controller to some other Rent Controller.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In so far as Section 24 CPC is concerned the same is not applicable to the case under the Rent Control Act because the Rent Controller is not a court subordinate to the High Court within the ambit of Section 24 of the CPC .

Now coming to Section 21(5) of the Act, I am of the view that this provision also is not attracted at this stage because there is no order which is sought to be revised by the High Court in exercise of its revisional powers under the aforesaid section. The Petitioner has made general allegations that because of the fact that the Rent Controller is giving short adjournments and is proceeding with a post-haste, therefore, he does not expect justice at his hand, but there is no specific order which has been challenged. Therefore, this petition under this section also is not maintainable.

The Petitioner has also prayed that the High Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 should transfer the case from the court of the Rent Controller, Simla to the Court of the Rent Controller at Solan because there is no other Rent Controller at Simla to whose court the case can be transferred. Under Article 227 the powers can be invoked in case of grave dereliction of duty for which no other remedy is available and which will have serious consequences if not remedied. The Petitioner has not been able to show nor the record discloses, which I had summoned for perusal, that the learned Rent Controller has in any way failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him or has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him. Merely to expedite the proceedings cannot be said that he has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him. In fact it is the primary duty of the court to dispense justice speedily. If the Rent Controller has given short adjournments that would not show that the orders are in any way illegal so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. Simply to say that because of the fact that the court is giving short adjournment and proceeding with post-haste would not mean that the Petitioner will not have any justice at the hand of the Rent Controller. If the Rent Controller decides the case against the Petitioner he has got his remedy as provided for u/s 21 of the Act. This remedy under Article 227 is not at all available to him especially when there is no order which is impugned by him. As stated before, these are general allegations without showing the specific order which may be said to be either in excess of the powers or must have been passed without jurisdiction. This petition is nothing but a device to prolong the proceedings. Hence the same is dismissed.