Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Patna High Court dated 25th March 1949 in AS 2280 of 1948 reversing an appellate _decree of the Subordinate Judge in Suit No 62 of 1948
Baldev Sahay T K Prasad with him for the appel lant
NC Chatterjee HJ Umrigar withhim for the respond ent 1951
February 2
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by FAZL ALL J
This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna reversing the appellate decree of a Subordinate Judge in a suit insti tuted by the respondents
The facts of the case are briefly these
The respondents have been in occupation as a monthly tenant of several blocks of premises belonging to the appellants at a monthly rental of Rs 112
The rent for the months of March April and May 1942 having fallen into arrears they remitted it along with the rent for June on 28th June 1947 by means of two cheques
As the appellants did not accept the cheques on 4th August 1947 the re spondents remitted the amount subsequently by postal money order
On 12th August 1947 the appellants maintaining that there was non payment of rent and hence the respond ents were liable to be evicted under section 1 1 1 a of the Bihar Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1947 Bihar Act III of 1947 applied to the House Control ler for the eviction of the respondents from the premises
Section 11 1 a of the Act runs as follows  Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of section 12 where a tenant is in possession of any building he shall not be liable to be evicted therefrom whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except 147 a in the case of a month to month tenant for non payment of rent or breach of the conditions of the tenancy or for subletting the building or any portion thereof with out the consent of the landlord or if he is an employee of the landlord occupying the building as an employee on his ceasing to be in such employment  On 30th August 1947 the respondents whose money order had in the meantime been returned by the appellants deposited the rent up to the month of June in the Office of the House Controller
Notwithstanding this deposit the House Controller passed an order on the both November directing the eviction of the respondents by 10th May 1948 and holding that they had made themselves liable to eviction by reason  of non payment of rent
The order of the House Controller was upheld by the Commissioner on appeal on the 27th April 1948 and thereupon the respondents filed the present suit in the Patna Munsif s Court for a declaration that the order of the ContrOller dated the 10th November 1947 was illegal ultra vires and without jurisdiction
The suit was dismissed by the Munsif and his decree was upheld on appeal but the High Court decreed the suit holding that the order of the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction
The appellants were thereafter granted leave to appeal by the High Court and they have accordingly preferred this appeal
The High Court has delivered a somewhat elaborate judg ment in the case but it seems to us that the point  aris ing in this appeal is a simple one
The main ground on which the respondents have attacked the order of eviction passed by the House Controller is that in fact there was no non payment of rent and since no eviction can be ordered under the Bihar Act unless non payment is established the House Controller had no jurisdiction to order eviction
On the other hand one of the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants is that there was non payment of rent within the meaning of that expression as used in the Act since the rent was not paid as and when it 148 fell due
It was pointed out that the rent for the month of March became due in April and the rent for April became due in May but no step was taken by the respondents to pay the arrears until the 28th June 1947
It appears that at the inception of the tenancy the respondents had paid one month s rent in advance and it had been agreed between them and the appellants that the advance rent would be adjusted whenever there was default in payment of rent for full one month
It was however pointed out that the advance payment could be adjusted only for one month s rent but in the present case the rent for three months had become due and since in a monthly tenancy the rent is payable for month to month the rent for each month becoming due in the subse quent month non payment of that rent at the proper time was sufficient to attract the provisions of section 111 a of the Act
The appellants also raised a second contention namely that having regard to the scheme of the Act the House Controller was fully competent to decide whether the condition precedent to eviction had been satisfied anal once that decision had been arrived at it could not be questioned in a civil court
This contention was accepted by the first two courts and the first appellate court dealing with it observed as follows  But the Buildings Control Act has authorised the Con troller to decide whether or not there is nonpayment of rent and it is only when he is satisfied that there has been nonpayment of rent that he assumes jurisdiction
If the question of jurisdiction depends upon the decision of some fact or point of law and if the court is called upon to decide such question then such decision cannot be collater ally impeached vide 12 Patna 117
In my opinion when the Controller assumed the jurisdiction on being satisfied that there was non payment of rent and proceeded to pass an order of eviction
I think the Civil Court can have no jurisdic tion to challenge the validity of such order
 The High Court did not however accept this view and after referring to section 111 of the Transfer of 149 Property Act proceeded to propound its own view in these words Regard being had to the circumstances in which the Act under consideration was enacted and its object as stated in the preamble as being to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants  from buildings it would seem that the expres sion non payment of rent  in section 11 in the context in which it is used must be given an interpretation which would have the effect of enlarging the protection against determi nation of a tenancy enjoyed by a tenant under the ordinary law
The Legislature therefore by enacting that a tenant shall not be liable to be evicted except for nonpayment of rent  should be held to have intended to protect a tenant from being evicted from a building in his possession for being a defaulter in payment of rent if he brings into Court all the rent due from him before the order of his eviction comes to be passed 
If as contended for on behalf of the respondents section 11 of the Act were to be construed as entitling a landlord to apply for eviction of a tenant on the ground of irregular payment of rent amounting to  non payment  of rent and as empowering the Controller to determine as to whether irregular payment of rent amounts to non payment of rent within the meaning of sub section 1of section 11 and subsection 3 of section 18 were to be construed as making the decision of the Controller on this question of law a final one it will appear that not only this Act will have conferred a right upon the landlord very much in excess of the right that he enjoys under the ordinary law in the matter of determination of tenancies but that it will have conferred very much larger power on the Controller than that possessed by the Civil Courts under the ordinary law in the matter of passing decrees for eviction of tenants
The principle of law and equity on which relief against forfei ture for non payment of rent  is based will have been completely abrogated and the protection of a tenant in possession of a building instead of being enlarged will 150 have been very much curtailed
A construction of these provisions which is calculated to bring about these conse quences cannot and is not in accordance with the circum stances to which this Act was intended to apply and indeed cannot be accepted
The contention of Mr Lalnarain Sinha on behalf of the respondent that the circumstances disclosed in the petition raised the question for determination by the Controller whether a case of non payment of rent in law was established and his decision of that question even if wrong in law is not liable to be questioned in the Civil Court must be over ruled
 It seems to us that the view taken by the High Court is not correct
Section 11 begins with the words Notwithstand ing anything contained in any agreement or law to the con trary and hence any attempt to import the provisions relating to the law of transfer of property for the inter pretation of the section would seem to be out of place
Section 11 is a self contained section and it is wholly unnecessary to go outside the Act for determining whether a tenant is liable to be evicted or not and under what condi tions he can be evicted
It clearly provides that a tenant is not liable to be evicted except on certain conditions and one of the conditions laid down for the eviction of a month to month tenant is non payment of rent
Sub section 8 b of section 11 provides that the Controller shall if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if he is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application
Section 16 empowers the Controller to make enquiries and inspections and to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents in the same manner as is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure
Section 18 pro vides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may within 15 days of the receipt of such order by him prefer an appeal to the Commissioner of the Divi sion and it also prescribes the procedure for the hearing of the appeal
Sub section 3 151 of this section states that the decision of the Commission er and subject only to such decision an order of the Con troller shall be final and shall not be liable to be ques tioned in any Court of law whether in a suit or other pro ceeding by way of appeal or revision
 The Act thus sets up a complete machinery for the investigation of those matters upon which the jurisdiction of the Controller to order eviction of a tenant depends and it expressly makes his order final and subject only to the decision of the Commis sioner
The Act empowers the Controller alone to decide whether or not there is non payment of rent and his deci sion on that question is essential before an order can be passed by him under section 11
Such being the provisions of the Act we have to see whether it is at all possible to question the decision of the Controller on a matter which the Act clearly empowers him to decide
The law on this subject has been very lucidly stated by Lord Esher MR in The Queen vs Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax1 in these words  When an inferior court or tribunal or body which has to exercise the power of deciding facts is first estab lished by Act of Parliament the legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body
It may in effect say that if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things it shall have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise
There it is not for them conclu sively to decide whether that state of facts exists and if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence what they do may be questioned and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction
But there is another state of things which may exist
The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction on finding that it does exist to proceed further or do 1  at 319
20 152 something more
When the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction they also have to consider whatever jurisdiction they give them whether there shall be any appeal from their decision for otherwise there will be none
In the second of the two cases I have mentioned it is an erroneous application of the formula to say that the tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist because the legis lature gave them jurisdiction to determine all the facts including the existence of the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends and if they were given jurisdiction so to decide without any appeal being given there is no appeal from such exercise of their jurisdiction
 On the same lines are the following observations of Sir James Colville in The Colonial Bank of Australasia vs Wil lan1 which is a case dealing with the principles on which a writ of certiorari may be issued  Accordingly the authorities establish that an adju dication by a Judge having jurisdiction over the subject matter is if no defect appears on the face of it to be taken as conclusive of the facts stated therein and that the Court of Queen s Bench will not on certiorari quash such an adjudication on the ground that any such fact however essential has been erroneously found
 There can be no doubt that the present case falls within the second category mentioned by Lord Esher because here the Act has entrusted the Controller with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether there is non payment of rent or not as well as the jurisdiction on finding that there is nonpayment of rent to order evic tion of a tenant
Therefore even if the Controller may be assumed to have wrongly decided the question of non payment of rent which by no means is clear his order cannot be questioned in a civil court
It seems to us that on this short ground this appeal must succeed and we 1  at p 443
153 accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore the decree of the courts below
The appellants will be entitled to costs throughout
Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1947 has entrusted the Controller with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether there is non payment of rent or not as well as the jurisdiction on finding that there is non payment of rent to order eviction of a tenant
Therefore even if a Controller has wrongly decided the question wheth er there has been non payment of rent his order for evic tion on the ground that there has been non payment of rent cannot be questioned in a civil court
Queen vs Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax 21 OBD 313 and Colonial Bank of Australasia vs Willan LR PC 417 relied on 146