IMTIAZ AHMED Vs. TAHA EXPORTS BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This House Rent Revision Petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 challenging the judgment and order dated 19-9-1995 passed by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, South Range, Bangalore, rejecting the petitioners-applicants' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceedings under Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 32 of 1961) for fixation of fair rent. The petitioners-applicants moved an application to the effect that under the orders of this Court in Revision Nos. 389 and 613 of 1994, the tenants had to make deposits of the rents but the tenant has committed default and he has not deposited the rent and he was in arrears for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- The applicants prayed that the tenant be directed to deposit the said rent at the admitted rent of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. In case of non-compliance of direction to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-, the application under Section 14 of the Rent Control Act moved by the tenant-opposite party be dismissed. The Rent and Accommodation Controller, South Range, Bangalore, dismissed therefore the said application of revisional applicant observing that the proceedings could be initiated under Section 29 of the Rent Control Act. Section 29 of the Rent Control Act would be applicable to the civil Court and it is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to issue such a direction and the Controller has no such jurisdiction to issue direction. The Rent Controller having rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to issue any such direction as prayed and there is no ground to dismiss the application for fixation of rent on that basis as well. That feeling aggrieved from this order dated 19-9-1995, the landlord who were respondents in the Accommodation Controller, preferred this petition under Section 50 of the Act.

(2.) Ihave heard Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, Counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashok B. Patil, Counsel for applicant and applied my mind to their respective contentions. 2-A. Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act confers revisional power on the High Court and those powers are very clear as circumscribed by the conditions mentioned therein. Section 50(1) reads as follows :

(3.) A bare reading of Section 151 per se reveals that this section is declaratory of inherent power which are already vested in the Courts and it only provides that inherent powers to pass order in the interest of justice shall not be deemed to be controlled, or restricted or to be deemed to be limited by any of the provisions of the Code. It means the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court have been recognised and preserved under the Code so far as Courts are concerned. The Courts are distinct from quasi judicial authorities or Tribunals. A perusal of Section 3(c) and (d) of Karnataka Rent Control Act per se reveals that the legislatures while enacting the Rent Control Act, mentioned in clear terms that the Controller stood on a different footing and was not a Court.