BATA BEHERA Vs. HRUDANANDA OHJA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Opposite parties 1 to 7 are the heirs of the original landlord late Bairagi Ojha. They filed an application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 50/ - and had not paid rent for more than 3 year's and that the house was required for their personal use. The reliefs sought were (i) for eviction of the Petitioner under Section 7 of the Act and, (ii) for fixation fair rent under Section 5 of the Act. Amongst other defences, which are not relevant, the Petitioner took the plea that he was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ - and not Rs. 50/ -.

(2.) THE House Rent Controller, Cuttack, held that the landlords required the house for their use bona -fide, and accordingly directed the Petitioner to deliver possession of the house within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, who allowed the appeal and passed the following order:

(3.) MR . Mohanty argues that the learned Additional District Magistrate determined the rent at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month from 16 -5 -1962 onwards on the basis that there was an agreement between late Bairagi Ojha and the Petitioner for payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month and that Rs. 60/ - was fixed as the rent per month although the landlords claimed Rs. 75/ - per month. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not an appellate Court and cannot go into evidence for coming to a different finding. The fact remains that the ultimate order of the learned Additional District Magistrate is not supported by his finding and the order that we have passed is merely to bring the final order in conformity with the finding in the judgment.