GOPAL RAMPRASAD MUNDADA Vs. RAMLING MAHALING SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the premises in dispute bearing Municipal No. 253 situated at Tilak Road, Beed. The responden tis the landlord. The respondent filed proceedings for eviction of the petitioner principally on two grounds: namely, wilful default in payment of rent by the petitioner, and the bonafide requirement of the respondent in respect of the suit shop for the purpose of carrying on his own business. It appears that the petitioner-tenant did not file any written statement. The first date of hearing in the trial Court was August 16, 1980. On the said date, the petitioner appeared personally and sought time to file his written statement. The case was adjourned to August 29, 1980. On that date, the case stood adjourned for filing the written statement. It is thus further adjournments were granted and the case finally stood adjourned, for some reason or the other, on December 20, 1 80, when the petitioner-tenant was absent and, therefore, his right to file written statement was forfeited. At that stage, the plaintiff appears to have orally stated that he does not want to lead any evidence. It is, therefore, the case was posted for passing an ex parte order and judgment. Accordingly, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on May 4, 1981. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge challenging the order passed by the Rent Controller. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by judgment and order, dated December 18, 1981. It is that judgment and order is challenged by the petitioner in this Court by way of this Civil Revision Application under section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (Hyd. Act No. XX of 1 54) (hereinafter referred to as "me Hyderabad Rent Control Act").

(2.) Shri R. R. Jethlia, learned Counsel appearing in support of this Civil Revision Application, contented that when there is no evidence on recordj the learned Rent Controller is not empowered to pass an order unless the Rent Controller is satisfied on the merits that any one of the grounds mentioned in section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act are contravened. The satisfaction of an authority must be based upon a material evidence on record. Since the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence to satisfy the Rent Controller as to the contravention of any of the provisions of section 15, the order must be held to be without jurisdiction. In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and others, AIR 1974 SC 471, it is observed by the Supreme Court that the Rent Court under the Act (that is, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947) in not competent to pass a decree for possession either in invitum or with the consent of the parties on a ground which is de hors the Act or ultra vires the Act. A prohibitory mandate to the Rent Court that it shall not travel beyond the statutory grounds mentioned in sections 12 and 13, and to the parties that they shall not contract out of those statutory grounds is inherent in the public policy buiit into the statute. In view of these observations and in view of the language which is used in section 15. the Rent Controller was not justified in law to pass an order without any material before him for the purpose of his satisfaction as to contravention of any of the statutory grounds given in section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. The appellate Court committed an obvious error, and that being an error apparent on the face of the record, to confirm the decree for eviction in the absence of any material as to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller of the contravention of section 15 (2) (i) or any of the sub-clauses of section 15 (3) (a) of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act and, therefore, the order of the appellate Court deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Since the petitioner has not filed any written statement, it is submitted that he should be given an opportunity to file a written statement. The peititioner is given an opportunity to file his written statement within a period of four weeks from today or within two weeks from the receipt of record of this case by the Rent Controller, whichever is later. In case, he makes a default in filing the written statement, his right to file written statement shall automatically stand forfeited. The plaintiff shall be entitled to rely on the averments made in the application filed under section 15. The Rent Controller shall record the evidence, if the plaintiff desires to produce any, while giving liberty to the defendant to cross-examine him and to produce his own evidence and then to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.