SUMER CHAND Vs. DAYA SARUP SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, which requires decision in this revision petition, against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is whether the Controller, appointed under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a Court, .within the meaning of section 195 (1) (b), Code of Criminal Procedure. The question arose in a complaint, filed under section 193, Indian Penal Code, by the petitioner, against the respondent. The allegations in the complaint were as under:-

(2.) On the 9th May 1962, the petitioner and his brother had made an application, under section 14 (1) of the Act, before the Controller, for eviction of the respondent from the portion of the premises occupied by him. The eviction had been sought on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the respondent had acquired or had been allotted a residence after the commencement of the Act. The Controller entrusted the application to the Additional Controller for disposal. The resl Magistrate, the Additional District Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the complaint on the ground that the offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, was alleged to have been committed in proceedings before the Additional Controller, who was a Court as the complaint was not filed by the Additional Controller, but by e petitioner only, section 195(1) (b) , Code of Criminal Procedure, was a bar to taking coganizance of the complaint.

(3.) A revision petition against the order of the Additional District Magistrate was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the present revision petition.