Rajendra Shankar Shukla vs Ramdev Sahu

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24-12-2013 passed by the Rent Controller, whereby the Rent Controller, as a measure of interim relief, has directed recovery of possession and eviction of the petitioner-tenant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is validly inducted tenant of the premises. The respondent No. 1/landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 2011"). When the petitioner received a notice of the case, reply to application for interim relief was filed by the landlord. The case was taken up for consideration of interim relief and by interim order, the Rent Controller had directed delivery of possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord, which is in excess of jurisdiction. 2. On, the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the power conferred on the Rent Controller to grant eviction of the landlord on the stated ground vests him with the power to grant interim relief. The accommodation was required by the landlord for organising the marriage of his daughter. He had no other accommodation to conduct marriage ceremony. He also submits that the tenant has put a lock in the premises, which shows that the tenant is not residing in the accommodation. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional illegality in the order directing recovery of possession.

In the present case, the respondent-landlord has initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner-tenant by filing an application u/s 12(2) of the Act of 2011 mainly on the ground that there is default of payment of rent; despite notice for payment of arrears of rent; rent has not been paid; the accommodation is required by landlord; tenant is causing nuisance; tenant is not presently using the accommodation and it has been kept under the lock. Later on, application for interim relief was also filed by the landlord praying that he needs the premises for organising marriage of his son and daughter. Therefore, as an interim measure the possession of the tenanted premises be handed over to him.

The petitioner filed reply to interim relief opposing the same.

Vide impugned order, the Rent Controller has passed an order directing that the tenant should handover the possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord as an interim measure.

It is stated at the bar and the State Counsel also does not dispute that the Rent Control Tribunal is not functioning. Therefore, the matter was entertained by this Court.

Under the statutory scheme of the new Rent Control law in the State namely, C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011, Rent Controller constituted u/s 7 of the Act, has been conferred powers to adjudicate upon rights and obligations of landlord and tenant. u/s 9 of the Act amongst other powers, Rent Controller has been conferred power to enforce the obligations enjoined upon landlord and tenant under the Act. Section 10 of the Act provides that the Rent Controller shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder and shall have powers to regulate his own procedure, and for the purpose of discharging his functions under this Act, he shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit or an appeal in respect of the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (h) of Section 10(1) of the Act of 2011.

Schedule 2 appended to the Act enumerates landlord''s right available under the Act, which includes right of the landlord to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the grounds enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (h) of Clause 11 of Schedule 2.

Therefore, there is no doubt that under the scheme of the new Act the Rent Controller has been vested with the power to order eviction of the tenant on the application of the landlord on the grounds stated as above and for that purpose, Rent Controller has authority to regulate its own procedure and exercise certain powers of the Civil Court as described herein above.

However, there is no provision under the Act nor it can be inferred from any of the provisions under the Act that the Rent Controller has drastic power to provide by way of interim direction during the pendency of the eviction proceeding, recovery of possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord. Under the scheme of the Act, eviction of the tenant can be directed only upon proof of any of the grounds as exhaustively enumerated in Clause 11 of Schedule 2 of the Act of 2011. This by necessary implication means that the power of the Rent Controller to direct eviction can be exercised only upon proof of stated ground. An order directing recovery of possession as an interim measure, for all purposes is in subsistence, an order of eviction of tenant, though for a temporary period. None of the provisions of the Act either expressly or by necessary implication confer such a drastic power on Rent Controller, a quasi judicial authority under the Act of 2011.

Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Rent Controller had no authority under the law to pass an order of interim nature, pending eviction proceedings, to direct eviction of the tenant and handing over of the possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord. This virtually is the final order that could be granted under the Act by the Rent Controller upon proof of grounds stated in the Act.

In view of the above, the interim order passed by the Rent Controller is clearly in excess of jurisdiction vested under the law. The order, therefore, is set aside.

It is made clear that this Court has not decided any issues on merits and demerits of landlord''s claim for eviction. It will be open for the Rent Controller to decide the matter of eviction in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2011.

The learned Counsel for landlord submitted that the Rent Controller has kept the matter pending for a long time without any decision contrary to the spirit of the provisions of the Act of 2011. Considering this submission and the statutory scheme of the Act, it is observed that the Rent Controller shall expeditiously decide the matter pending before it. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed off.