DAMODAR HARIBAKSHA AGARWAL Vs. RAMRATIDEVI WD O RAMKISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by letters patent can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Briefly the facts are that the appellant landlord filed applications in these cases against the respondents/ tenants under several clauses of Clause 13 of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). Originally the Rent Controller rejected the applications filed by the landlord. However, in appeal the Resident Deputy Collector, allowed the appeals and granted permission to the landlord under Clauses 13(3)(v), (vi) and (vii) of Rent Control Order. Feeling aggrieved the tenants preferred writ petitions in this Court. The question raised in the writ petitions was whether the learned appellate authority, who decided the appeals, had jurisdiction to decide the same. The said question was answered in favour of the tenants by the learned Single Judge of this Court in these petitions by his judgment which is now reported in (Madhavrao v. Damodar) 1988 Mh.L.J. 403. Having held that the learned appellate Authority who decided the instant appeals had no jurisdiction to decide the same, the learned Single Judge remanded the matters for a fresh decision according to law by the competent appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved the landlord has preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeals in this Court.

(2.) The only question which arises for consideration in the instant appeals is whether the learned appellate authority, who had decided the instant appeals under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, had jurisdiction to decide the same. To appreciate the said question, it is necessary to consider the scheme of Clauses 21 and 21-A of the Rent Control Order and the notifications issued by the State Government under Clause 21-A of the said Order. Clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order provides for an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller to the Collector. It is clear from sub-clause (2) of Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, that the Collector has power and jurisdiction to decide the appeal. However, Clause 21-A(1) of the Rent Control Order empowers the State Government to invest the powers of the Collector under Clause 21 upon any officer by issuing a notification in that regard. After such a notification is issued by the State Government under Clause 21-A(1) of the Rent Control Order the Collector is empowered under sub-clause (2) of Clause 21-A to transfer any appeal to any such officer for disposal, and the decision of such officer has then the effect as if the appeal is decided by the Collector.

(3.) In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 21-A of the Rent Control Order, the State Government had issued a notification dated 13-6-1966 investing all the Resident Deputy Collectors with powers of the Collector and also the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur, for Nagpur district. The said notification is as follows : "Notification under clause 21-A(1) Officers mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule below have been invested with powers of a Collector under clause 2 of the C. P. & Berar ------Order, 49, within the areas mentioned against them in column against them in column (2) of the said schedule. SCHEDULE <FRM>JUDGEMENT_26_BCR2_1989Html1.htm</FRM>