GH QADIR KHAN Vs. GH MOHD GANAI
LAWS(J&K)-1999-3-14
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 08,1999

Gh Qadir Khan Appellant
VERSUS
Gh Mohd Ganai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) CIVIL Revision petition No 30/94 titled Ghulam Qadir Khan V/S Gh Mohd Ganai, has been dismissed by this Court on 27.2 1998 This order of dismissal of revision is prayed to be reviewed on the ground, that two civil revision petitions (30/94 and 49/94) were filed by the parties against the order date 12.5.94 of appellate Court of IVth Additional District Judge Srinagar passed in Civil Misc. Appeal 2/93 In the said appeal before the Court of IVth Additional District Judge Srinagar order dated 24.5.1993 passed by Rent Controller (C J M). Srinagar U/S 14 of J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (hereafter short Act) was under challenge The Rent Controller had declined permission to the tenent to deposit the outstanding rent before him for the reason that the provisions of Section 14 of Act and Rule 7 of J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Rules (hereafter Rules) in terms providing the procedure and statutory steps required to be taken before the rent can be allowed to be tendered in the office of the Rent Controller, have not been complied with. The District Judge pronounced that the order impugned before the Appellate Court was legally valid so far as it held that non -compliance with provisions of Section 14 of Act and Rule 7 of Rules legally disables tenant to deposit rent with the Rent Controller and permission thereto could not have been granted by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Court also held that before the tenants right to deposit the rent under the provisions of Act could be decided on merits compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 14 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules, was mandatory. It is only after provisions of law are complied with that the question of adjudication of application on merits, regarding permission to deposit the rent or otherwise can be examined and adjudicated. Against this order civil revision No, 30/94 was filed by the tenent challenging the part of the impugned order regarding deposit of rent touching the merits of the case However this revision was dismissed vide this Court order dated 27.2.98, after the Court noted that another revision petition 49/94 against the very order was dismissed by this Court on 19.7.94. The Court in its order dated: 19.7.94 in C R 49/94 examined the entire wharf and web of the impugned order and found it not a fit case where the impugned order merited interference in revision.
(2.) THIS Court in order dated: 27.2.98 after taking note of earlier order of 19.7.94 in CR 49/94 observed that filing of 2nd revision (C.R. 30/94) against one and same order is improper and impropriety is aggravated by pursuing one revision while other one has been disposed of.
(3.) REVISION petitioner, the owner of the tenented shop situated at Goni Khan Srinagar submits that in the revision filed by him (30/94) he has challenged part of the impugned order which permits the tenent respondent to deposit the rent in case the Rent Controller finds same is merited on compliance with provisions of the Act and the Rules, whereas in the other C.R. 49/94 filed by the tenent the part of the impugned order whereunder the tentent was not permitted to deposit the rent U/S14 of the Act, after the Rent Controller (CJM) Srinagar found non -compliance with statutory procedure and mandatory provisions of Section 14 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules Therefore, the observation of the Court that it is improper on the part of the counsel to file and prosecute second revision as it impinges on the judicial discipline prays the counsel may be expunged. Besides the counsel also submits that he had no knowledge of the earlier petition 49/94, as the revision was dismissed at preliminary stage without notice to him/otherside It is on this ground that the order is prayed to be reviewed and the observation made in the order touching the conduct of the counsel, are submitted, merit to be expunged. The counsel for respondent submits that in the revision 49/94, the impugned order as such was examined by the Court The order as a whole was under challenge Therefore, once the revision was dismissed second revision was not competent on the same question. The counsel conceeds that the counsel for review petitioner, Mr. G.H Masoodi Advocate, had no knowledge of the earlier revision petition of 49/94 in so far as petition was dismissed on the threshold stage without notice to otherside.;


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