V.N.Misra - (1.) THIS is an application under section 482, CrPC to get proceedings on the complaint filed by the opposite party under sections 193/199/ 201, IPC and orders of the lower c?urt dated 9-6-1980 and 4-8-1980 quashed.
(2.) IT will not be necessary to state the facts involved in this case in details. IT will be sufficient to say that the applicant got a house allotted in his name The opposite party who was landlord of the premises then filed this complaint against him under sections 193, 199 and 201, IPC with the assertion that the allegations contained in an affidavit filed by the applicants before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were false and, therefore, he had committed offences, under these sections. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicants was that since in this case perjury was said to have been committed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, therefore, under section 195 (1) (b) CrPC only the court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer could file a complaint and the complaint could not be filed by the opposite party himself and the Magistrate on such an improperly filed complaint could not take cognizance of the offences said to have been committed. Under section 34 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the District Magistrate while acting under this Act is a Civil Court within the meaning of sections 345 and 346, CrPC and proceedings before him are judicial proceedings for the purpose of sections 193 and 228, IPC. This would mean that the District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to whom the duties of the District Magistrate are delegated under this Act is a court only for the purpose of sections 345 and 346, CrPC and for no other purpose. It also means that proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer are judicial proceedings only within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, IPC and under no other section. From this section alone, therefore, it seems that only for these limited purposes the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is a court and is not a court for any other purpose.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appliicant relied on the decision in Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 777. In that case it was held that the bail order and the order of discharge in that case both arose from the FIR lodged with the police and in that case it was found to be a false FIR therefore offence under section 211, IPC was committed in relation to these proceedings. It was further held that while deciding a bail or giving the order of discharge the Magistrate was a court and not in a different sense than the sense in which the word 'Court' occurs in section 195 (1) (b), CrPC. This decision, however, is not material to the matter in issue, because whether a Magistrate is a court or not and for which purpose would not show that a Rent Control and Eviction Officer is a court or is not a court and similarly whether the bail orders and the order of discharge by a Magistrate arise from the report lodged with police also does not concern us in this case. It was held in Desk Raj v. State, 1966 AWR 753 "that the R. C. and E. O. is not court but only an authority who had been invested with certain powers of a Civil Court, for carrying out the purposes of the Act". In Tota Ram v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1979 AWC 502 it was again held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not a court within the meaning of section 195, CrPC. Thus, the consistent view is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not a court and he is only an authority invested with certain powers. It must, therefore, be held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not a court within the meaning of section 195 (1) (b), CrPC. It was then urged that the premises were allotted to the applicants and the revision filed by the opposite party also failed. Therefore, the opposite party had no cause of action to bring the complaint. I have been greatly amazed by this argument, because cause of action arises only in a civil suit and in a criminal complaint as soon as the offence: is committed the person aggrieved has a right to file the complaint.;