MUNNALAL TLWARL Vs. LAXMINARAYAN LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application filed by the appellant before the Rent Controlling Authority under section 24 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority. THE appeal before the District Judge, Jabalpur, was also unsuccessful. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) IN the application filed before the Rent Controlling Authority the appellant, who is the landlord, had prayed that the tenant be ordered to deposit the monthly rent of January 1966 without prejudice to the rights of the appellant. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that there was no provision under the Act conferring jurisdiction on the. Rent Controlling Authority to entertain the kind of application filed by the landlord.

(3.) THE facts of the case of R. v. Dowling, (1857) 8 E & B 605, were that under the Judgments Act, 1838, section 36, an insolvent prisoner for debt might be discharged from imprisonment, either upon his own petition, or upon the petition of any of his creditors. Section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1847, in abolishing the circuits of the Insolvent Commissioners, and transferring their jurisdiction to the county Courts, provided that "if an insolvent petitions", the insolvent Court should refer his petition to the Court of the district where he was imprisoned, but it emitted all mention of cases where the petitioner was a creditor. In these circumstances, it was held that if section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1847, was literally construed, it would involve unjust result, in that though a vesting order might be made and the debtor be deprived of his property, he would remain imprisoned. THE words "if an insolvent petitions" were, therefore, interpreted to mean "if a petition be presented" and it was immaterial whether the petition was the insolvent's or the creditor's. It is obvious from the facts of the case and the decision thereon that an insolvent could be discharged from imprisonment either upon his own petition or upon the petition of his creditors. That right was not modified by section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act; it only provided for transfer of certain applications from one Court to another and, while providing for such transfers, inadvertently a provision was made which came in direct conflict with the provisions under the Judgments Act. In those circumstances, the Courts were called upon to interpret the law in such a way as to keep the rights of the parties intact. That is not the case here. THE right under the Transfer of Property Act of recovering the rent through a civil Court has not been affected by sub-section (I) of section 24 of the Act. What sub-section (1) of section 24 does is to enlarge the time for payment of rent. That provision is for the benefit of the tenant and not for the landlord. No application for recovery of rent before the Rent Controlling Authority can, therefore, be filed.