Decided on June 18,1973

Nakula Apat And Anr. Appellant
Ramaraman Khuntia And Ors. Respondents


S.K. Ray, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant 's application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of eviction passed against him in the proceeding initiated under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE house, from which eviction has been ordered, undisputedly belongs to Pratihari Nijog. It was let out to Petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of holding a shop therein as a monthly tenant, at a monthly rental of Rs. 60/ -. This tenancy was to commence from 1 -1 -1960. In evidence and acknowledgement of his induction as a tenant into the house, the Petitioner No. 1 executed a document (Annexure -B) dated 1 -1 -1960 in favour J, of the Secretary of Pratihari Nijog. Petitioner No. 2, is the brother -in -law of Petitioner No. 1 and is stated to be in charge of the management of the shop held by the Petitioner No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of both the Petitioners on two grounds, namely, that (a) the Petitioner is a wilful defaulter and (b) that the landlord requires the house for his own use and occupation. This application was resisted by the Petitioner on a number of grounds. The House Rent Controller framed 11 issues of which the issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have a direct bearing on the principal issue regarding maintainability of the application for eviction under Section 7 of the Act at the instance of Opposite party No. 1. The House Rent Controller on a consideration of evidence held that both the grounds for eviction had been made out and, consequently, passed an order (Annexure -1) directing that the landlord be put in possession of the house forthwith. The Petitioners carried an appeal to the A.D.M. from the order of the House Rent Controller. The A.D.M. by his order dated 10 -8 -1971 (Annexure -2) dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the order for eviction is being executed in execution case No. 240 of 1970 in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, and the said execution case is pending.
(3.) THE sole contention raised here by Mrs. Padhi is that the Secretary of the Pratihari Nijog had no locus standi to institute the proceeding for eviction under Section 7 of the Act, in as much as, he was the Petitioner, " landlord" as defined in the Act, and, as such, the House Rent Controller lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction, and, therefore, all subsequent stages in the proceeding including the appellate ' order are without jurisdiction and bad in law. Thus, Annexures 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.