DES RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order repecting the objection that the complaint under Sections 193 and 199, I.P.C. could not be entertained by the Magistrate as the same had not been preferred by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before whom the alleged false affidavit i was filed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision may now be stated. One Munna Lal who was the landlord of certain accommodation, applied under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (The Act) seeking permission to file a suit to eject his tenant, the applicant Des Raj. The application under Sec. 3 was contested by the tenant who filed an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer making certain statements which disentitled the landlord from seeking permission to eject the tenant. The result was that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the landlord. Thereafter the landlord filed a complaint under Sec. 193 and 192 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging that the latter had made false statements in-the affidavit filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The applicant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint and contended that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence inasmuch as the complaint had not been preferred by the court in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 195(1) (b) of Crimial P.C. The Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge overruled the objection and hence the revision.

(3.) The sole point for consideration is whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is a court as contemplated by Sec. 195 Crimial P.C. The expression court is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 3 of the Eviction Act defines court as follows:-