Anil Jain vs Amar Nath and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller, dated 10-3-1986 and 9-9-1986 whereby sanction has been given u/s 22 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, to the tenant for filling the complaint against the landlord.

The landlords through their Mukhtiar-i-am Hem Chand filed an ejectment application on 13-2-1986. Therein certain arrears of rent were claimed along with house tax with effect from (Sic)-1-19(Sic)0 to 31-3-1985 amounting to Rs. 393.75 P. The said house tax was paid by the tenant Later on, he represented that he has already paid house tax with effect from 1-1-1980 to 31-3-1982 that is Rs. 81/- and. therefore, the latter has charged the said amount twice and thereby violated the provisioas of the Act. He, therefore, shought permission u/s 22 of the said Act for filing the necessary complaint against the landlords. The said permission was granted by the Rent Controller vide its order dated 10-3-1986. Subsequently, the complaint was filed and the five landlords who were arrayed as accused were summoned vide order dated 9-5-1986.

At the time of motion hearing on 30-10-1987. further proceedings were stayed in the complaint case.

A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of Respondent-tenant that no petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable when the landlords had their remedy to file a revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller granting permission for filing a complaint. Strong reliance was placed on Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others,

Faced with the situation, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this petition may be treated as a Revision Petition u/s 15(6) of the Haryana Act. He further submitted that the ejectment application was filed by the landlords through their Mukhtiar-i-am. Hem Chand and if at all, there was any violation of the provisions of the Rent Act, action could be taken against him and not against the landlords who were living away in Bombay. According to the learned Counsel, u/s 22 of the Act, the words ''any person'' includes the landlords and the tenant as well as their agents. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, no permission could be granted against the landlords as such who were five in number. In support of his contention, he referred to Dhani Ram v. Mahavir Jain Shoe Store, Khanna (1982) P.L.R. 204, 1973 R.C.J. 21.

I have heared the learned Counsel for the parties. Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Act alia provides that the High Court as Revisional Authority, may at anytime, on its own motion, call for and examine the record relating to an order passed or proceedings taken in this behalf for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety thereof as it may deem fit.

That being so, in exercise of the said powers, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Action, if any, could be taken against the Mukhtiar-i-am, Hem Chand who filed the ejectment application. Apart from that, it has been stated at the bar, that the ejectment application is still pending for adjudication. That being so, there was no occasion for the Rent Controller, to pass any order unless the proceedings are finalised and it is found as fact that the landlords have violated the provisions of the Act in any manner In these circumstances, this petition succeeds, both the impugned orders are set aside with no order as to costs.