PRAHLAD DASS VERMA Vs. PADMA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is disposed' of at the admission stage after hearing counsel. The question is whether the "provisional rent" determined by the trial Court Under Section 13 (2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 confirmed by the Revisional Court below is assailable in our writ jurisdiction. Because of the limitation of our jurisdiction Shri A. B. Mishra has endeavoured to satisfy us that there was no inquiry and there was no determination of "provisional rent" therefore, the order passed by the two Courts below is without jurisdiction and those orders should be set aside and an inquiry should be ordered. However, we are unable to appreciate that contention after perusing the order and also material which have come up before us. It is true, that in this Court, Annexure P-1 is filed and that was filed also in the trial Court, i. e. a rent receipt of the year 1946. In that monthly rent mentioned is Rs. 35/ -. Basing his contention on that Shri Mishra has submitted that Courts below have wrongly fixed the provisional rent in the sum of Rs. 110/ -. We are of the view that unless the Courts. below have disregarded that material and have relied on other non-cogent materials to reach their conclusion, no interference is warranted with that conclusion. It is submitted by Shri Agarwal, appearing for the non-petitioner, that before the trial Court there were also other materials of which copies are filed with the return as Annexures R-1 to R-8. Perusing those documents it has. appeared to us that the rent fixed by the controlling parties in the year 1946 was revised in the course of time and currently the rent payable was Rs. 110/- per month. In that regard there is admission of the petitioners manifested in Annexures R-5 and R-6. Admissions have a different character deserving conclusiveness of findings unless the admissions are rebutted or any care is taken to rebutt the same. It does not appear that, that was done in the Court below and that was also not done here before us.

(2.) SHRI Mishra relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jivrambhai and Anr. v. Arnarsingh, 1972 MPLJ 785, AIR 1973 M. P. 165 and we have examined that decision. At para 9 of the decision it has been observed that "summary enquiry" was necessary and not "elaborate trial of the issue" and in that case that inquiry was not held. It has also been observed that in case the plea was of admission of payment of exorbitant rent, for that plea to be agitated the proper forum was Rent Controlling Authority. We have no doubt that for that view provisions of Sections 7 and 10 provide a basis. Therein parties have been given the right to agitate the question of fixing of "standard rent" and that fixation has to be done by the Rent Controlling Authority.

(3.) WE are also of the view that jurisdiction contemplated being as special and specific jurisdiction any order passed Under Section 7 or 10 would be binding on the parties and benefit of that order can be claimed by the parties in any proceedings between them.