State of Himachal Pradesh vs Smt. Ruldi

C.R. Thakur, J.—This revision petition under the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, read with Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the order, dated 31st August, 1978, passed by the Rent Controller, Kulu, in Case No. 7 of 1977 of this Court.

Smt. Ruldi had filed an application under the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for vacation of her building, which had been let out to the Himachal Pradesh Government for housing the office of the Mountaineering Institute, Manali.

The Respondent had contended that Smt. Ruldi (hereinafter called the applicant) was not the owner of the buildings and that the building belonged to Shri H.D. Benon and as such she had no locus standi to file the petition. The Rent Controller repelled the contention raised by the present Petitioner before this Court and finally passed the order of eviction on 31st August, 1978.

The State filed the present revision petition against that order of eviction challenging the findings on the grounds that the Court had erred in appreciating evidence on record and did hot take into consideration the fact that the Respondent had no locus standi to file the petition. The Rent Controller brushed aside the entire evidence.

At the time of admission it was enquired from Shri H.K. Paul appearing on behalf of the State as to whether this revision petition under the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act was maintainable or not. Shri Paul contended that the petition was competent and he in support of his contention relied upon a case Guranditta Ram v. Murari Lal and Anr. (1974 PLR 579)

Under Sub-Section 1(a) of Section 21 of the Act, the State Government has been given the powers to confer on such officers-and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, the aggrieved party: has been given the right of appeal to be availed of by him within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for preferring an appeal to it. Under Sub-section (2), the appellate authority has been given the powers to stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal. Under Sub-section (3), the appellate authority is given the power to decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. Under Sub-section (4), the decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Controller is made final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law except as provided in Sub-section (5) of this section. Sub-section (5) empowers the High Court on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion to call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the; Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings.

Now the scheme of the section is quite complete that first the State has to empower some person as an appellate authority to hear an appeal of the aggrieved person under the Act and thereafter the appellate authority is to exercise that power as stated therein. The powers of stay of operation of the order of the Rent Controller is also given to the appellate authority and the decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Controller is made final and is not open to question in any Court of law except as provided in Sub-section (5) of the section. Therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controller and which has been challenged by this revision petition under the. provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act cannot be said to be an interlocutory order, rather it is a final order passed by the Rent Controller and which is subject to appeal under the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. If the Petitioner has not filed an appeal against the final order of the Rent Controller as contemplated under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, then this revision, in my opinion, is not at all maintainable.

The learned Counsel for the State has tried to argue on the basis of fop provisions of Section 115 of the CPC which, in my opinion, are not at all applicable because it is a complete Code by itself. In fact the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are not the Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning; of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The learned Counsel for Petitioners has contended that the District Judge had not been empowered to ace as an appellate authority, therefore, in absence of the appointment of the apellate authority as contemplated under the Act, there was no appeal to be filed and the only remedy open for the Petitioner was by way of a revision under Sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act. But it maybe stated that the Petitioner has not taken any such ground in the grounds of revision. The only ground taken is that the learned Rent Controller did not property appreciate the evidence and brushed aside the entire evidence. Moreover it is the duty of the State to clothe some person with the power of the appellate authority and it does not lie in the mouth of the State to say that no person has been appointed as such. Since the case had gone against the Government, therefore, the Government should not be permitted to come forward with such a plea. The authority cited by Shri Paul Guratta Ram''s case (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the case cited above the revision was directed against the placing of the onus of the issues. Therefore, it was an interlocutory order against which a revisions petition was filed under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 25 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Which is quite parimateria with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Act. In the present case the revision petition is directed against the final order on the ground of appreciation of evidence and therefore when there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in the exercise of its no jurisdiction this power under Sub-section (5) of Section 21 cannot be exercised by this Court. It cannot be said that the order is without evidence or is based on rib evidence. No matter that the Court has drawn a wrong conclusion from the evidence but a wrong conclusion on the basis of evidence cannot be interfered in a revision petition.

I may quote a Division Bench authority of the Andhra Pradesh High Court In Re: Salem, in which the provisions of appeal and revision under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act are quite parimateria to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. In the similar situation it has been held:

Revisional powers of the High Court conferred by Section 22 of the Act can only be invoked when the impugned order is one passed by the Controller in execution u/s 15 or if it is an order passed by the appellate authority u/s 20. Section 20 of the Act provides an appeal against any and every order passed by the Rent Controller and therefore no direct application for revision u/s 22(1) can be filed against an order of the Controller, even though the order complained of might be an interlocutory order, for Section 20 does not confine the remedy of appeal to final orders of eviction or of refusal to evict. Revisional powers of the High Court cannot be availed of before an appeal as provided in Section 20 is filed.

In the light of the above, I am of the view that this revision petition is not maintainable against the final order passed by the Rent Controller. The remedy open for the Petitioners is by way of an appeal which they have not availed of for reasons best known to them.

The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby, dismissed.