HAMIDULLAH Vs. MIRZA MAHBOOB ALI BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows: The respondent herein filed an application for eviction against the petitioner from a building under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. In the said proceedings he was awarded costs to the tune of Rs. 18g-60Ps. For recovery of the aforesaid costs the respondent filed an execution petition E.P. No. 4 of 1973 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad for attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor-petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application E.A. No. 29 of 1973 out of which this revision petition arises, praying that an amended warrant of attachment of the salary should be issued stating that the provisions of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and the salary which the petitioner was drawing could be proceeded against in execution only subject to the limitations prescribed by section 60, Civil Procedure Code. While the respondent alleged that the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.5oo inclusive of allowances, the petitioner alleged that he is drawing only a salary of Rs. 221 per month . The lower Court held referring to section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,and Rule 23 (8) of the Rules framed thereunder, that the provisions of section 60 Civil Procedure Code being inconsistent with the provisions of section 21 of the Act, rule 23 (8) of the Rules, section 60 Civil Procedure Code, is not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, and in that view dismissed the application E.A. No. 29 of 1973.

(2.) In this revision petition Sri G.P. Sanghi the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor-petitioner submitted that the Act and the Rules made thereunder are silent With regard to the procedure to be adopted for attachment of salaries and, therefore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to attachment of salaries are attracted and are applicable and the view taken by learned Rent Controller, that section 60, Civil Procedure Code,, would not apply is incorrect. The learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in G. Satyanarayana v. S. Satyanarayana Murthy, in which Copal Rao Ekbote, J., (as he then was) held as follows: "In all cases where there is no conflict between the Rent Control Act or the Rules made there under and the Civil Procedure Code or wherever the Act or the Rules made thereunder are silent on matters relating to procedure, the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, can certainly be relied upon. As the Rent Control Act is silent as to the procedure to be followed in amending petitions, Civil Procedure Code, is applicable." Accordingly the learned Judge was inclined to take the view that the provisions of Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act. In view of the above said decision it is clear that where the Rent Control Act or the Rules are silent and where there is no conflict between the provisions of the said Act and the Rules and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, would be attracted to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act.

(3.) In the instant case, the relevant provisions on which the Rent Controller relied upon in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 60, Civil Procedure Code, are inapplicable, are section 21 of the Act and rule 23 (8) of the Rules, which read as follows:- "21. Costs:-Subject to such conditions and limitations, if an, as may be prescribed, the costs of and incident to all proceedings before the Controller, or the appellate authority referred to in section 20 shall be in the discretion of the Controller or the appellate authority, who shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purpose." Rule 23 (8): If an order passed under section 14 or section 21 has not been obeyed by the party concerned, the same may be enforced by the attachment of his property or by detention in" the civil prison or by both or by any other manner suitable in the opinion of the Controller." These provisions do not in any way conflict with or are inconsistent with the provisions of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, these provisions do not lay down any procedure with regard to taking proceedings in execution in respect of salaries. The Act and the Rules being silent in that regard, the provisions of section 60 Civil Procedure Code, would be attracted and would be applicale. The execution proceedings taken against the salary of the judgment-debtor-petitioner, would therefore, be subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed by section 60 Civil Procedure Code. The order of the lower Court that the provisions of section 60, Civil Procedure Code, are not applicable is, therefore erroneous in law and has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the application E.A. No, 29 of 1973 is ordered.