MOHD IKRAMUDDIN Vs. SHEELA BAI EKBOTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition raises a short point whether the appellate authority consistent with the provisions of the Rent Control Act could, direct that witness who is exempt from personal appearance under section 133, Civil Procedure Code, be not summoned but be examined on commission, the commission, expenses having been promised to be deposited by the landlady, the petitioner in the rent control proceedings.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in the proceedings for eviction, the tenant applied to the Rent Controller to call the husband of the petitioner-landlady as his witness. His application was dismissed as not bona fide on the basis that the document sought to be proved by the witness had been already admitted by the landlady thus requiring no further proof in that behalf. The matter was carried in appeal. The appellate authority, the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, did not advert to the question whether the document sought to be established being already admitted by that party needs be further put to proof which would mean only unnecessary prolongation of the case. The only point that seems to have weighed with him was whether the attendance of a high dignitary functioning in the State a sitting High Court Judge, who is exempt under section 133 (1) (x) of the Civil Procedure Code, can and ought to be enforced by issuing summons, or whether issue of commission would be an appropriate measure warranted by law in such cases. As the proviso to rule 22 framed under section 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act hereinafter called the Act) made the relevant provision of the Civil Procedure Code, in relation to the summoning of witnesses, applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller, he felt that the evidence of the witness may be brought on record by issuance of a commission, and gave direction accordingly. It seems, such a direction was warranted also because it was represented to him on behalf of the petitioner-landlady that she will meet the costs of such a commission and deposit the same in the Court. The learned Chief Judge appointed an Advocate to act as a Commissioner and directed that on deposit of costs, which were specified in the order, a warrant of commission returnable within one month shall issue. Aggrieved by this order the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) His main contention is that Order 26, Civil Procedure Code, has no application to the proceedings before the Rent Controller and hence the order of issue of commission was incompetent and bad in law. It is bad also because the learned Judge had suo motu and not on the application of a party directed issue of commission. Thus not only jurisdiction to make such an order but also the legality and propriety otherwise thereof is brought into question. It is now for us to examine how far such a contention is tenable in law. It is necessary to notice at the very outset, the relevant provisions in this behalf of the Act and also the Civil Procedure Code. The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, with which we are mainly concerned for purpose of this case,is a self-contained enactment. Section 25 which relates to summonses to witnesses read thus :-