TRIVENI BAI Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 16-1-2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Vidisha in Case No. 2/A-90/07-08.

(2.) Briefly stated relevant facts are that Dr. Chiranjilal, predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 submitted an application under Section 10 (4) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for fixation of standard rent against the revisionist in respect of the premises occupied by the latter. The Rent Controlling Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha vide his order dated 26-8-1989 made the fixation @ Rs. 75/- p.m. per room and Rs. 50/- p.m. for Varanda. Revisionist, who was in occupation of three rooms and one Varanda was held liable to pay the rent in all to the tune of Rs. 275/- p.m. with effect from 16-8-1984. The Rent Controlling Authority issued a letter to the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Vidisha for execution of the said order. Execution proceeding No. 5 x 86 x 87 x 90 was initiated by the said Court. Said proceedings were stayed in Civil Revision No. 465/2001 by this Court. It was finally held by this Court vide order dated 3-1-2003 that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute the order passed by the RCA. The Court of Civil Judge Class I, Vidisha while dismissing the execution case in pursuance of this Court's order dated 3-1-2003 granted a liberty vide his order dated 3-2-2003 to the respondent to move an appropriate application before the RCA for recovery of the arrears of rent as per earlier order dated 26-8-1989 passed by the RCA. Pursuant thereto, the respondent submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Officer for execution of the order dated 26-8-1989. Learned SDO passed an order on 16-1-2008 directing thereby the revisionist to deposit the rent or submit receipts in case if he has already deposited the rent. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 16-1-2008 as without jurisdiction and against the law.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the order of fixation of rent passed under Section 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not executable. The aforesaid has been countered on behalf of the respondents on the ground that by virtue of the powers available to the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 35 of the said Act, the Rent Controlling Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is warranted in the present revision.