SURYAKANT BHAGWANJEE Vs. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION, RANCHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in these batch of cases being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The order under challenge is Annexure -3 passed by the House Controller under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. The order in appeal is Annexure -4 passed by Deputy Commissioner and the order in revision passed by the Commissioner are Annexures 5 and 5(A). The Rent Controller held that respondent no. 4 had paid the rent for the months of July to November 1974 but the petitioner failed to grant receipts. He, therefore, directed the petitioner to grant receipts to respondent no. 4 for the months of July to November 1974. On appeal it was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and the revision preferred before the Commissioner was also dismissed.

(2.) In an application filed by respondent No. 4 before the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short the Act) it was alleged that some time in May 1975 his firm M/s Chhaganlal Dayalji was a monthly tenant of the petitioner in respect of a shop located in a room inclusive of an inner varandah, where the respondents firm carried on the business. As usual the rent was paid for the months of July to November 1974 but the petitioner did not grant the receipts for the amount paid as rent. The petitioner filed show cause before the Rent Controller alleging that the said firm of respondent no. 4 was in arrears of rent since July 1974 and inspite of repeated demands, the rent was not paid and, therefore, the question of granting receipts did not arise. The Rent Controller sent the matter for enquiry to one Executive Magistrate at Jamshedpur who submitted his report in March 1976. Relying on the report of the Executive Magistrate, the Rent Controller held that the rent for the period has been paid but the receipts were not granted. The Rent Controller, therefore, directed the petitioner to grant receipts for the months of July to November 1974, As stated earlier the appeal preferred against the order was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner and the revision preferred before the Commissioner was also dismissed.

(3.) The contention raised by Mr. Ghosh the petitioner's counsel are (a) that the Rent Controller acted beyond jurisdiction and in contravention of Clause 2 of Sec. 14 of the Act in referring the summary enquiry to an Executive Magistrate, (b) that the landlord's failure to grant receipts would attract the penal clause of Sec. 14(2) of the Act, and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction directing the grant of receipts and (c) that the Rent Controller did not consider whether the complaint was Sled within three months from the date of failure to deliver the receipts in other words, if the failure to deliver the receipt was in respect of the month of July, 1974 could the complaint be filed in January 1975.