- (1.) the petitioner was a tenant of the premises of which the 3rd respondent is the landlord. Respondent no. 4 also happens to be the tenant under that very landlord. Whereas the petitioner is a medical practitioner, the 4th respondent happens to be an insurance company. It would appear that both of them agreed upon a plan to exchange the respective premises in their occupation, admittedly belonging to the 3rd respondent landlord. Respondent 3 landlord having not demurred on that count it transpires thai both petitioner and respondent 4 grabbed the premises in their holding, petitioner occupying the 4th respondent's premises and the 4th respondent occupying the petitioner's premises.
(2.) for some reason it would appear another doctor by name surendrashetty-respondent no. 5 who is represented by Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned counsel felt somewhat piqued and feigned to be aggrieved by this exchange of properly belonging to the owner and therefore reported the matlcr to the rent controller for action under section to a of the k.r.c. act. The rent controller appeared to remain unconvinced by the alleged illegality in the innocuous exchange of premises effected between the petitioner and respondent 4 with the consent of the landlord and he ruled out any action in that matter.
(3.) respondent 5 did not allow matters to rest in that he preferred an appeal to thedeputy commissioner under section 12 of the act. The appeal was admittedly belated being 50 days behind time. The learned deputy commissioner however choose to condone the delay involved in preferring the appeal despite opposition by the petitioner who was a party therein. I am not quite sure, in the circumstances the deputy commissioner could have persuaded himself to condone the delay of 50 days which in ordinary circumstances never be deemed to be fairly long. None the less he condoned the delay and Sri sundaraswamy, learned counsel points out the specious reason given by the deputy commissioner for condoning the delay, which reads: "the claim and counter claim made on this aspect are to my mind not so material. The appellant bad made a specific claim about loss of the certified copy and has given an affidavit in support thereof. The respondent has only termed the affidavit as frivolous and false. Neither of the parties have supported their contentions with any documentary proof. At least the appellant has given an affidavit whereas the respondent has only given a counter statement. Therefore, I disregard this aspect and propose to consider the case on its merits." (emphasis supplied) I am surprised the deputy commissioner should have thought the filing of an affidavit by the appellant before him and the circumstance that the tenant filing only a counter statement instead of an affidavit so as to match the step taken by the appellant, whether that should be treated as giving the appellant before the deputy commissioner any leverage but then I remain unconvinced of the needless credibility attached to the affidavit opposed by a mere counter statement and not by a counter affidavit. While I do not propose to investigate into the correctness of the finding recorded by the deputy commissioner in condoning the delay on what appears to be a trivial reason but then I am persuaded however to interfere at the behest of the petitioner on an in limine ground, namely, the 5th respondent herein who had nothing to do with the matter who had merely drawn the attention of the rent controller to some unsavoury proceedings in the premises belonging to the landlord, could he be treated as a person aggrieved by the order of the rent controller. Section 12 of the Act, permits filing of an appeal from the order of the rent controller, which reads: "12. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the controller under ihe provisions of this part may within thirty days from the date of communication of ihe order appeal (i) to the deputy commissioner, when the officer passing the order is an officer below the rank of a deputy commissioner, and (ii) to the divisional commissioner, when the officer passing the order is an officer not below the rank of a deputy commissioner, and the appellate authority may pass such order on the appeal as it deems fit" the section as extracted above, makes it clear that the person can approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal under section 12 of the Act, provided he is really aggrieved by the order passed by the controller. Now the order of the rent controller refusing to take action on the information furnished by the 5lh respondent does not touch his interest personally or even otherwise it docs not trammel any legal right of the 5th respondent, unless it be it is a question of the 5th respondent being interested in the law being administered in accordance with the requirements thereof. The appeal before the deputy commissioner is not and cannot be treated as akin to any public interest litigation where the question of locus standi may not be very relevant and strictly germane. The law speaks of a person being aggrieved by the order passed by the rent controller. If as pointed out above the rent controller merely refused lo take action in the matter of exchange of premises between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, I do not know how the 5th respondent can feel aggrieved by that order of the rent controller and feel impelled to file an appeal under section 12 of the act. However, well meaning the move to assail the order of the rent controller by the 5th respondent may be and I will take it he was not motivated by any collateral considerations in mobilising the power of the deputy commissioner under section 12 of the act. Even then so long as the requirement of the section is that a person should be aggrieved by an order of the rent controller in order to take any action in the matter of exchange of premises between the petitioner and the 4th respondent cannot lead to any grievance on the part of the 5th respondent who had nothing to do with the premises in question.;