Yahiya Kacchi vs Kurban Shah and Others

D.P.S. Chauhan, J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.94 passed in a Case No. 55-A-98 (7) 88-89 before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur, u/s 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Act). The revision is described to be u/s 115 C. P. C. in the memorandum of Revision though Section 115 C. P. C. is not applicable. Section 23E of the Act itself provides a forum for revision though the powers exercisable by the High Court are in essence the same as are in Section 115 C. P. C.

The revision filed by the applicant is barred by 176 days and is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act together with in affidavit of the applicant. The affidavit is not properly drafted, as is required under Chapter III of the Rules of the Court. Rule 12 (1) casts an obligation on the officer administering the oath or receiving the solemn affirmation to set the declarant if he has read the affidavit and understand the contents thereof, and if the latter states that he has not read it, or appeared not fully understand the contents thereof, or appears to be blind, illiterate or ignorant of the language in which it is written, the officer administering the oath shall read and explain in his presence, the affidavit to the declarant in a language which both the declarant and the officer administering the oath understood.

Further, when an affidavit has been read, translated or explained or herein provided, the officer administering the oath or receiving the solemn affirmation shall certify in writing at the foot of the affidavit that it has been so read, translated or explained in his presence and that the declarant appeared to understand the same at the time of making the affidavit and made his signature or finger-impression in the presence of the officer.

The affidavit as filed, does not fulfil the requirement and it is apparent that the applicant Yehiya Kachhi is not conversant with the English language. The affidavit therefore cannot be taken to be reliable and deserves to the rejected.

U/s. 23-E of the Act, this Court has not suo-motu power of interference which power is not circumscribed.

The attention was invited to the order sheet dated 21.4.94 which is as extracted below :-_

According to this order-sheet, the case for hearing arguments was posted for 10.5.94. The order dated 10.5.94 is as extracted below :-

The order-sheet dated 10.5.94 does not speak that the arguments were heard. Rather to the contrary, it stales that it may be presumed that the parties do not want to make submissions and accordingly the case was posted for order. No circumstances has even been disclosed.

If this order-sheet may be taken to he correct, then the order which is under challenge, does not contain the arguments of the counsel. The presiding officer apparently was negligent. After looking to the order-sheets dated 21.4.94 and 10.5.94, the act of the presiding officer does not appear to be fair and on going through the impugned order it is apparent that the Rent Controlling Authority on whom the Legislature has reposed confidence that it will not fairly and diligently in deciding the cases under the Act, has betrayed faith.

In view of the above, the impugned order is not worth sustaining and deserves to be set aside. The order dated 10.7.94 (impugned) is accordingly set aside.

Revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with costs. Learned Rent Controlling Authority is directed to decide the case after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The case is restored to its original number and the Rent Controlling Authority is directed to decide the case on merits after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.