STATE Vs. GULABKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge, East Nimar Khandwa, recommending that the initial order dated 3 -10 -1961 as also the subsequent order dated 13 -11 -1961 of the Rent Controlling Authority, the former in case No. 14 of 60 -61 and the latter presumably in execution of the order therein, be set aside.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge has reported the case in these circumstances. Non -applicant No. 1 Gulabkhan is the landlord while the non -applicant No.2 Sk. Abdulla is his tenant. As the said landlord had removed certain tin sheets from the premises in occupation of the said tenant and thereby had deprived him to some extent of the essential services enjoyed by him in respect of the accommodation in his occupation, a suit was filed by him under section 8 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act of 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act) before the Rent Controlling Authority concerned, complaining of the same and claiming compensation. After due enquiry the Rent Controlling, Authority accepted the complaint and ordered the landlord to repair the damaged Balli and to restore the tin sheets within three days. However, the claim of the tenant for award of compensation was rejected. But the Rent Controlling Authority did not stop at that. It further ordered that in the event of default to comply with the order, for each day's default after the expiry of three days the landlord shall pay to the tenant Rs.10 per day. This order of imposition was expressly stated to be one under section 8 (5) of the Act. The landlord thereafter, it appears, took no steps within the stipulated period and on 1 -11 -1961 the tenant moved a petition for recovery of the amount that had accrued due at the rate of Rs.10 per day from the landlord. But by 11 -11 -1961 the landlord appears to have complied with the order of restoration of the essential services. The Rent Controlling Authority accordingly, by its order dated 13 -11 -1961, ordered the landlord to deposit Rs.390 for 39 days i.e. from 4 -10 -1961 to 11 -11 -1961. It is this order which was challenged by the landlord by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Judge who accepting the same has made the recommendations as stated in the beginning.

(3.) ALTHOUGH I agree with the aforesaid opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, but in the view that I take the revision itself before him was not tenable and as such this reference is misconceived. My reasons for this are these. The Rent Controlling Authority under the Act is no doubt an inferior Court but it is inferior only to the District Judge being its appellate Court under section 12 of the Act. The Rent Controlling Authority while entertaining the application under section 8 of the Act does not function at any time as a Criminal Court. At best it could be said to function more like a civil Court rather than a criminal Court. In this view, therefore section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, would not be attracted inasmuch as it confers on the superior courts named therein revisional powers with respect to any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court and with respect to no other. The Sessions Judge, therefore, could not entertain any revision petition and make a report to this Court with any recommendations.