Sri Ram vs Special Judge (E.C.Act), Unnao and Others

O.P. Srivastava, J.—The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.11.1994 passed by learned Munsif South, Unnao on application under Section 30(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short Act No.13) for permission to deposit the rent and the order dated 28.1.1995 dismissing the revision as not maintainable.

The petitionertenant of a shop situate in Mohalla Jawaharnagar, Unnao City moved an application under Section 30(1) of Act No.13 in the Court of Munsif South for permission to deposit Rs.540/ as rent for three months from September 1992 to November 1992, at the rate of Rs.180/ per month.

The learned Munsif on the basis of terms of agreement directed the petitioner/tenant to deposit rent @ Rs.216/ per month which was challenged in revision before the learned District Judge. The revisional Court although found that learned Munsif did not have any jurisdiction under Section 30(1) of the Act to direct the tenant to deposit the rent at any rate other than the rate at which the petitioner had prayed for permission to deposit but being of the view that revision against such an order was not maintainable, the petitioner''s revision was dismissed.

The above orders have been challenged in the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s S. Chand and Company v. II Additional District Judge, Lucknow and Others, 1985 (3) LCD, Page 114, Revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an order passed under Section 30(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the learned Munsif did not have jurisdiction to determine the rate of rent on application under Section 30(1) seeking permission to deposit the rent.

I have gone through the Section 30(1) of Act No.13 as also Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 30(1) permits a person claiming himself to be a tenant of a building to deposit any amount as rent in respect of a building to its alleged landlord and if the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same, then the tenant may deposit such amount in the manner prescribed and to continue to deposit rent according to subsection (3) of Section 30.

Since deposit is to be made in the Court of Munsif having jurisdiction, therefore, as held in para 9 of the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the revision was maintainable.

Section 115 which is reproduced herebelow:

�115. Revision The High, in case arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value exceeding One lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding Five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 or as the case may be, the date of commencement of such notification and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or district Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested; in it by law; or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section:

Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any roder including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where

(i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or

(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

Provided also that where a proceeding of the nature in which the District Court may call for the record and pass orders under this section was pending immediately before the relevant date of commencement referred to above, in the High Court, such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same.�

From the above provision, it is clear that the revision may lie against an order passed not only in original suits but in other proceedings by any subordinate Court. Since under Section 30(1) the application is to be made to the Court of the Munsif exercising jurisdiction, the proceedings emanating on such application under Section 30(1), will come within the definition of the other proceedings. Therefore, since the application was to be filed before the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction the proceedings commenced on application under Section 30(1), revision would lie under Section 115 of the CPC except in the two circumstances indicated in the proviso. The restrictions under proviso in regard to the revision is that the Court shall not vary or reverse any order except where the order if so varied or reversed would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings and where the order if allowed to stand would occasion in failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

As regards the merit, the learned revisional Court has observed in its order that the Munsif did not have jurisdiction to determine the rate of rent. A plain reading of the provision of Section 30(1) will clearly show that if the landlord refuses to receive the rent the tenant will be permitted to deposit the rent in the Court of Munsif having jurisdiction. Therefore, the only option to the Munsif was to permit the deposit of the rent at the rate, the tenant prayed for. The determination of the rent by the Munsif was clearly beyond its jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 30(1).

Now the question is whether the order of the Munsif is covered by proviso to Section 115 or not. The order passed by the Munsif was a final order disposing of the proceedings under Section 30(1) and therefore, if the order is reversed, it would finally dispose of the said proceedings also. Otherwise also if the order is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure in justice to the petitioner because in dispute regarding rate of rent, the order of the Munsif may unnecessarily cause complication/confusion. The rate of rent is to be determined by the competent Court whenever such controversy arises before it. Therefore, since learned Munsif did not have power to determine the rate of rent its order causes, injustice to the tenant. Thus the revision was clearly maintainable and order of Revisional Court otherwise was erroneous.

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 23.1.1999 passed by the revisional Court is quashed. The revision stands allowed and the order of the learned Munsif regarding direction for deposit of the rent at the rate more than Rs.216/ per month also stands modified accordingly. The petitioner/tenant is permitted to deposit the rent as prayed in the application under Section 30(1).

(Petition allowed)