MIRZA SAMIULLAH BAIG Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of premises known as 41-A, Hazratganj, Lucknow. THE petitioner's case is that he was carrying on business of coaching institute in these premises in partnership with Sri Nariani, opposite party No. 2. Certain disputes having arisen in rela tion to the partnership business, opposite party No. 2 filed a suit in the Civil Court against the petitioner for an injunction that the petitioner be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the premises. In the suit he claimed that he was the tenant of the premises. THE petitioner's defence inter alia was that the matter was liable to be referred to arbitration. Further hearing of the suit was stayed. Subsequently the petitioner made an application for reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Meanwhile opposite party No. 2 appears to have made an application before the Area Rationing Officer exercising powers of the District Magistrate under the Rent Control Act of 1972. It was prayed that opposite party No. 2 was in possession of the premises from before the coming into force of the Act of 1972, and that he had become the tenant under Section 14 of that Act. THE Area Rationing Officer, by an order dated 17th September, 1974, accepted this claim and declared that opposite party No. 2's tenancy stood regularised under Section 14 of Act No. 13 of 1972. When a copy of this order was filed in proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner came to know of this order. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition to question the validity of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Area Ration ing Officer who was acting as the District Magistrate under the Rent Control Act of 1972, had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings for the purpose of making a declaration with reference to Section 14 of the Act. THE submis sion has substance. Section 14 provides- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licence (within the meaning of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pen ding before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such buildings." It will be seen that the Section does not confer jurisdiction either on the District Magistrate or even the Prescribed Authority to entertain proceeding for the purpose merely of making a declaration under Section 14 of the Act. It declares the legal position, of which any person may claim benefit in appro priate proceedings by way of defence or otherwise. THE scheme of the Rent Control Act is that it confers certain functions on the District Magistrate. For instance, Section 8 authorises the District Magistrate to settle disputes regarding the amount of standard rent. Section 9 authorises him to deter mine standard rent. Section 16 provides for orders of allotment or release to be made by the District Magistrate. Clause (e) of Section 3 defines "Prescribed Authority". Certain func tions have been allocated by the Act to the Prescribed Authority. For instance, under Sections 21, 24, 27 and 28 of the Act the Prescribed Authority can entertain certain kinds of proceedings and pass orders thereon. Section 14, however, is a purely declaratory provisions, which states the legal position if certain factual situations are made out, It or any other provisions of this Act does not confer power or jurisdiction on the District Magistrate or even the Prescribed Authority to entertain any proceeding with a view to making a declaration contemplated by Section 14. THE District Magistrate or any other officer authorised by him as well as the Prescribed Authority constituted under this Act are all authorities with limited jurisdictions only in respect of matters for which express provisions has been made in the Act. THEy are not Courts of general jurisdiction so as to entitle them to entertain pro ceedings for which no power or jurisdiction has been conferred on them. Section 14 is a provision under which no provision has been made to empower either the District Magistrate or the Prescribed Authority to entertain pro ceedings only to make a declaration. THE order dated 17th September, 1974, passed by the Area Rationing Officer was without jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. THE impugned order dated 17th September, 1947, is quashed. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.