SLNGHAL BHAIYALAL Vs. RLKHILAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the tenants whose application under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority in default and the application for restoration thereof was also dismissed on the ground that there was no provision in the Act similar to Order 9, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code; nor is there any provision in the Act allowing the Rent Controlling Authority to review its previous orders; nor can the inherent powers be invoked in such a case.

(2.) SECTION 10 of the Act provides that the Rent Controlling Authority, shall, on an application made to it in this behalf, either by the landlord or by the tenant, in the prescribed manner, fix in respect of any accommodation the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of section 7. SECTION 10, however, does not prescribe the procedure that should be followed by the Rent Controlling Authority. SECTION 29 of the Act provides that the Rent Controlling Authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in any proceeding before it in respect of the enumerated matters; such as, summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; and any other matter which may be prescribed. No rules have been made by the State Government in this connection. SECTION 30 provides that no order shall be passed by the Rent Controlling Authority prejudicial to a party without affording him reasonable opportunity of raising objections and producing evidence in that behalf. SECTIONs 31 and 32 provide for appeals against the orders of the Rent Controlling Authority, while section 33 confers jurisdiction on the Rent Controlling Authority to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. SECTION 36 provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, every order made by the Rent Controlling Authority shall, subject to decision in appeal, be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. It would be thus apparent from the provisions of the Act that the Act is absolutely silent as to what the Rent Controlling Authority is expected to do if the party applying for fixation of standard rent commits default and remains absent.

(3.) THE principles enunciated by the Bombay High Court in the above- cited case appear to be attractive; but there is difficulty in applying those principles to the provisions of the Act in the present case. By accepting the principle that such an application can be dismissed in default, subject to the possibility of its restoration under certain circumstances, it is conceded that the order is final so long as it is not set aside in restoration proceedings. Section 36 of the Act says that the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority shall, subject to decision in appeal, be final. THE setting aside of an order in restoration proceedings would amount to review of the order. THEre is no provision in the Act conferring any jurisdiction on the Rent Controlling Authority to review its orders. THE only authority conferred on the tribunal is to correct certain enumerated mistakes. THE power to review is not inherent in the tribunals and it is required to be specifically conferred. In Ruplal Sitaram Bhagat v. Lala Sheo Shankar and others, 1952 NLJ 404, a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court held that in the absence of any provision similar to Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, a Rent Controller has no inherent power to set aside an ex parte order. To set aside an ex parte order is in a sense reviewing a previous order. This decision of the Nagpur High Court was affirmed in Raghunandan Lal v. Nemichand, Misc. Petition No. 6 of 1952 decided on 17-2-1953 and Ramgulam v. Ganeshprasad, 1953 NLJ Note No 211 (Misc. Petition No. 241 of 1952 decided on 17-2-1953). This Court is bound by the decisions of the Nagpur High Court and it is, therefore, difficult to follow the Bombay decision.