TARINI SAHU Vs. CHAPPATI SESHAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for a writ of certiorari is directed against on order made by the Controller under the Orissa House Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the ''Act '') directing payment of arrears of rent and in default thereof debarring the tenant -Petitioner from contesting the proceeding. The said order has been upheld in appeal, but in lieu of the direction regarding payment of the rent to the landlord, the appellate authority has directed the said amount to be deposited in Court.

(2.) THE landlord instituted the proceeding (H.R.C. Case No. 17 of 1963) -for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was a defaulter. After the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 4 of 1968, was passed, the proceeding was registered afresh as a pending matter in H.R.C. Case No. 25 of 1968. On 31 -10 -1968, the landlord applied for a direction under Section 7(3) of the Act. The tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 458.25 towards arrears of rent after claiming adjustment under several heads in respect of the premises. The written statement was thereafter filed. on application was again made on 16 -7 -1971 for a direction under Section 7(3) of the Act and this time it was stated that the arrears of outstanding rent related to the period between 10 -8 -1961 and 16 -8 -1971 excepting the period between 8 -5 -1967 and 8 -5 -1970, in respect of which a money suit had been filed. On 28 -1 -1972, the Controller asked for a calculation sheet from the landlord to justify the claim. Thereafter, the tenant was called upon to deposit the amount. on appeal was carried against the said direction. The appellate authority reduced the claim by Rs. 800/ - and directed the balance to be deposited in Court instead of being made over to the landlord. The said direction is impugned in this proceeding.

(3.) WE would accordingly allow this application, quash the order of the Controller as modified in appeal and require the Controller to proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. As we have already said, this proceeding is pending for more than a decade and should not be permitted to protract further. There shall be no order as to costs.