LAKSHMAN KUMAR PATNAIK Vs. SRIMATI BINAPANI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant -judgment -debtor is the Petitioner. On 1 -7 -1962, the House Rent Controller, Cuttack, dictated the following order.

(2.) THE order of the House Rent Controller dated 13 -7 -1962, which is the decree directing delivery of possession, makes it absolutely clear that the opposite party (Petitioner) would put the Petitioner (opposite party) in possession of the house within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the decree -holder that this order was dictated in the presence of the parities. Accepting this as correct as it has not been controverted by any counter affidavit, the position still remains that despite the fact the order was dictated by the Controller in open Court in presence of the parties, he deemed it desirable to grant 15 days time to the tenant for vacating the house from the date of the receipt of the order, and he made a specific direction to inform the tenant accordingly. On the basis of the decretal order, the tenant is not liable to be evicted within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order.

(3.) THERE is, however, no proof that the Controller sent a copy of the order to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, on 26 -7 -1962 in House Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 1962. Therein he produced a certified copy of the order of the Controller. He applied for a copy of the order on 17 -7 -1962 and received it on 18 -7 -1962, which may therefore be taken as the date of the receipt of the order. From the 15 days granted this date must be excluded. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the occupation of the house in his own right for a period of 15 days from 19 -7 -1962 and was not evictable on 97 -1962 when the delivery of possession was effected. The order directing delivery of possession and the actual delivery of possession effected on 29 -7 -1962 in pursuance of the order are contrary to the direction in the decree and liable -to be quashed. Section 13 of the Act lays down that the order of the Controller made under Sub -section (1) of Section 7 directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, shall be deemed to be a decree and executable as such in the Court of the Munsif within whose jurisdiction the house is situate. Neither in the Act nor in the Rules any procedure is prescribed to guide the Munsif in the matter of execution of the decree. Code of Civil Procedure has not been expressly made applicable to the Act. Rule 8 only lays down the procedure in enquiry before the Controller. The Act is silent and does not prescribe an appeal against the order of the Munsif under Section 13.