MOOLCHAND MOTUMAL TEKWANI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a tenant who made an application for deposit of rent in the Court of Munsif under Section 30(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The deposit was made but the landlord opposite -party filed objections on various grounds. One ground was that the building was not covered by the Act and another was that a suit for ejectment was pending in the Small Cause Court and that if any deposit was to be made it should be made in that suit and not in the court of Munsif. The learned Munsif however took the view that the merits of the controversy were not to be decided by him. Accordingly, be refused to consider the objections and permitted the deposit to be made. The landlord opposite party filed a revision. The Additional District Judge, on revision, set -aside the order of the Munsif and remanded the case back to him for considering the merits. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE first question that arises is whether a revision was maintainable under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that only provision for revision contained in the Act is that in Section 18. Sections 37 and 38 of the Act have also been relied on is support of the argument that no revision was maintainable. He has also relied on the authority of Ram Bharosey Lal v. Munsif, 1980 ARC 427.

(3.) EXAMINING the point on its merits we find that Section 30 uses the words "the court of Munsif". It is not with the Prescribed Authority or with the Munsif as persona -designata that the deposit is required to be made. It is in the court of Munsif which is the lowest court in the hierarchy of the regularly constituted civil courts. As such Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure should apply. Section 37 of the Act has no bearing on the question. It merely says that any order of any authority under the Act shall not be called in question in any court. What we are dealing with here is an order of a court itself and if that decision is revisable under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 37(1) cannot operate as a bar to such revision. Section 38 does over -ride the Code of Civil Procedure but only to the extent of any inconsistency with the provisions of the Act. There is nothing in the Act to shut out a revision under Section 15 against an order of a court of Munsif. Of course, no revision lies against orders of Prescribed Authority or even of a District Judge as an appellate authority under the Act. But when something is done by a regular court then the Code of Civil Procedure, including Section 115, should apply, as there is nothing in the Act which is inconsistent with the application thereof.