RANJIT KUMAR DEY Vs. KRISHNA GOPAL AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the aforementioned matters, the point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not barred, from the decision rendered by the appeal Court under section 8 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short the, Act 1972). The question arose in the light of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Revision No.196 of 1998 (West Bengal State Weaver's Co-op Society Ltd & others vs. Dr. Bibhabasu Chowdhury & others) decided on 20.1.04 (2004 (1) GLJ 375) wherein the learned Single Judge has held that no revision lies against the final decision of an authority under the Act 1972 and the remedy available, if any, to the aggrieved party is to approach the Court by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in the cases that the order passed in suit and the appeal Court under section 8 of the Act 1972 are decided by the civil Court. Appeal against the order passed by the trial Court is provided to the civil Court under Act 1972. Thus the decision in the matter is given by the Court having civil jurisdiction, which is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the CPC. Section 2 (a) defines the 'Court' for the purposes of Act 1972 to be a Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction, which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the house in question is situated, which would be competent to pass a decree for eviction of the tenant from that house. Section 8 provides for an appeal by the landlord or tenant aggrieved by any decision or order of the Court under the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 7 (2) of the Act 1972, as if, the decision or order of the civil Court is a decree in a suit for ejectment of the tenant from the house. Section 8 provides that the decision of the appeal Court shall be final. Therefore, on consideration of these provisions along with other provisions of the Act the decision or order passed by the appeal Court would be decree by the civil Court, and therefore, the High Court has jurisdiction under section 115 CPC to entertain a revision petition against the decree passed by the appellate Court, which as per section 8 attained finality, although, no second appeal is permissible. It is further urged that the decision of the learned Single Judge is mainly based on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2060 of 2002 (Subodh Chandra Deb vs. State of Assam & others.) The decision rendered in that case does not say that no revision is maintainable under section 115 CPC, what has been directed by the Court is only that the writ petition is maintainable, therefore, it cannot be said that the decision excludes application of section 115 CPC. If two remedies are available to the parties, viz writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and the revision under section 115 CPC, the parties are within its right to choose one of them. It is further urged that the Apex Court while passing the order was under the impression that the decision under the Act, particularly under section 8 was passed by the authority i.e. not by the Court, thus, the writ petition would be failing to notice that the order is passed either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court under the Act 1972, exercising civil jurisdiction and not by the Authorities. It is contended that the decision has not referred to any statutory provision or any decision, therefore, it would be treated as a decision sub-silent in and not having any binding effect.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that long practice of this Court for more than 20 years is of entertaining the revision petition against the decision given by the Court under section 8 of the Act, 1972, and therefore, the provisions of the Act should not be interpreted, so as to have the effect to unsettled the long standing practice of this Court. Therefore, unless there is any specific amendment or modifications of the Act debarring revision under section 115 of the CPC the legislative intent debarring the revision under section 115 of the CPC cannot be assumed. A large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts have been cited at the Bar, which I need not refer to and discuss at this stage, since I am of the view that the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the revision petition under section 115 CPC against the order passed by the appellate Court under section 8 of the Act, 1972, is of a great importance, since a large number of cases were entertained and decided previously by this Court in exercise of power under section 115 CPC and the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge would have an effect on a large number of cases pending in this Court. Considering all these factors, it would be appropriate that an authoritative decision by a larger Bench of this Court would settle the question involved in these revision petition.