Case: Rai Brij Raj Krishna And Another Vs. S.K. Shaw And Brothers

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 instituted 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 respondents 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 respondents were liable to be evicted, under section 11(1)(a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (Bihar Act III of 1947), applied to the House Controller for the eviction of the respondents from the premises. Section 11(1)(a) of the Act runs as followsanything 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 the evicted therefrom, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except -(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 without 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 such30th 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 10th November, directing the eviction of the respondents by 10th May, 1948, and holding that they had made themselves liable to eviction by reasons 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 Munsifs Court for the 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.

Reasoning:
Section 11 being with the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary, " and hence any attempt to import the provisions relating to the law of transfer of property for the interpretation 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 conditions 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 tenants is non-payment of rent. Sub-section (3)(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 provides 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 Division, and it also prescribes the procedure for the hearing of the appeal. Sub-section (3) of this section states that"the decision of the Commissioner and subject only to such decision, an order of the controller shall be final, and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law whether in a suit or other proceeding by way of appeal orcan 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 non-payment of rent, to order eviction 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.