LAWS(ORI)-1962-1-1

PARFULLA KUMAR DAS Vs. HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER

Decided On January 24, 1962
PARFULLA KUMAR DAS Appellant
V/S
HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing an appropriate Writ to quash the proceedings for eviction of the tenant-petitioner under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958 (Orissa Act 31 of 1958), herein after called the Act, pending before the House Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) in H. R. C. No. 44 of 1960.

(2.) The petitioner and his father (opposite party No. 4) were occupying the suit premises as monthly tenants of holding No. 150 in Ward No. 13 in the town of Cuttack under the landlords Harihar Satpathy and others. The said landlords sold the suit premises to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered sale-deed dated 19-12-1959. After the said purchase, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 became the owners of the suit house and called upon the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 to vacate the suit house, to deliver possession to them and also to pay arrears rent due on them, The tenants having failed to comply with the notice of the new landlords, the latter filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Rent Controller of Cuttack for ejectment of the tenants on the ground that they require the house for their own occupation and that the tenant was a defaulter in rent.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner-tenant before the Controller that no proceeding for ejectment under Section 7 of the Act was maintainable without prior determination of the tenancy by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. This objection having been Overruled by the controller an appeal (H. R. C. appeal No. 43/60) was filed before the Additional District Magistrate, of Cuttack, where the same contention was raised. The learned Additional District Magistrate by his order dated 6-1-61 dismissed the appeal holding that no such notice was contemplated within the scope of the Act and as such a proceeding under Section 7 of the Act was maintainable. It is against this order the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed.