A.K. Roy Chowdhury vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

V.D. Gyani, A.C.J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court at Shillong in Civil Rule No. 120(SH)/95. This order reads as follows:

The matter relates to a civil dispute. No application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable, as such the application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Appellant filed a writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, payment of compensation by the tenant Respondents in respect of civil wrongs, tortious acts of defaming the landlord i.e. the writ Petitioner-Appellant and family causing infringement of fundamental rights by branding him as "Speculative Mainac". It is such a writ petition that the learned Single Judge passed the above order.

The Appellant owns a house at Lower Lachaumiere, Shillong. The Respondent No. 4 a civilian Section Officer in the Defence Services of the Govt. of India approached the Appellant for letting out the premise for residential purpose which the Appellant did at the monthly rent of Rs. 350/- to be paid in advance every month. There was a written contract (Annexure-I) duly executed by the landlord and the tenant Respondent No. 4. It appears that there was some disputes on enhancement of rent. The Appellant landlord by letter dated 8.8.92 (Annexure-3) requested the tenant to vacate the tenanted premise. Subsequently, it turned out that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- per month. According to the Appellant, fair rent in no case is not less than Rs. 1029/-frcm 1st July, 1983, Rs. 1543/- from 1.7.88 and Rs. 2315/- from 1st July 1993. Thus, on this calculation the tenant Respondent was liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- plus interest from the default. Too obviously this demand of increased rent made by the landlord Appellant vide Annexures 4 and 6 was not acceptable to the tenant. The landlord repeated his demand in several other letters (Annexures-4, 5 and 20), at times also reminding him of his conduct under the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules and Pension Rules. The tenant through his counsel addressed a letter on 17.1.94 and intimated the landlord Appellant that while he was bound by the contract and the MRC Act, further informed the landlord that if he was really aggrieved, the Respondent tenant had no objection if the Appellant move the Court of competent jurisdiction for fixing fair rent. In the same letter the tenant also communicated that landlord''s writing to Respondent-tenant''s employer on the ''basis of Constitution of India, some recommendation of the Parliament and certain judgments of the Supreme Court was all baseless and was nothing but a fertile imagination of the landlord Appellant who was also described as "Speculative Mainac". Tenant''s letter sent through his advocate is filed as Annexure-7. It is the Appellant''s case that he even submitted his grievance to the then Chief of Army Staff General B.C. Joshi on 25.7.94. Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR (1994) SCW 4636, he also apprised the Chief of the Army Staff of certain alleged violation of human rights and adherence and compliance of general instructions issued by late General B.C. Joshi, former Chief of the Army Staff.

It is the Appellant''s case that he already moved u/s 4 of the Meghalaya Rent Control Act in the Court of the Munsiff at Shilling in May, 1993 praying fixation of fair rent. This case was disposed by the Munsiff vide order dated 14.11.96 and the Appellant appears to be dissatisfied with the same, preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Shillong seeking a relief of fixation of fair rent, giving some judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in S.S. Dhanoa Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others, the Appellant prayed for interim relief before the District Judge who by order dated 21.4.95 directed the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Govt. of Meghalaya to determine the fair rent in respect of the tenanted premise and the landlord should file a separate suit so far as damage on account of defamation was concerned or he could file a criminal complaint. It is the instance of the Appellant that no separate suit is necessary, he therefore approached this Court at Shillong Bench for issue of a writ of mandamus seeking, inter alia, damage for defamation. As already noted above, petition was summarily dismissed.

Going through the narration of facts as noted above, the impugned order as passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with on any legitimate ground. Although one would expect some brief statement of jurisdictional facts of the case which ultimately led to the impugned order. This appeal, for the foregoing reasons fails and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is made clear that dismissal of this appeal Will have no adverse effect on merits of a proceedings instituted by the Appellant before the competent Civil/Criminal Court.