DHIRENDRA KRISHNA PAUL Vs. SANTI RANJAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises from the order dated 27.9.1985, passed by the learned Munsiff (I), Jorhat in T.S. No. 17 of 1985 refusing to stay further proceedings in the suit during the pendency of Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1985 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted Misc. case No. 13 of 1984 in the Court of learned Munsiff (I), Jorhat against the respondents for determination of fair rent under Section 4 of the Assam Urban Arears Rent Control Act, 1972 for short the 'Act'. The learned Munsiff dismissed the petition under/or by an order dated 28.5.1985. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1985 which is pending in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. The respondents instituted T.S. No. 17 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Munsiff (1) claiming, inter alia, for eviction of the petitioner from the said house on the footing that the petitioner has not paid the rent lawfully due in respect of the house and/or the house is bonafide required by respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 CPC in the Court of the learned Munsiff to stay the hearing of the subsequently instituted T.S. No. 17 of 1985 till the disposal of the said Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1985. The learned Munsiff by an order dated 27.9.1985 rejected the petition; hence this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE first question for consideration is whether the proceeding under Section 4 of the Act for determination of fair rent is a 'suit', which 'suit has not been defined. In Hansaraj v. Deharadun, AIR 1933 PC (64) the Privy Council observed that the word 'suit' ordinarily means and apart from some context must be taken to mean, a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint. Section 26, CPC also provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. A plaint means statement of claims presented or tendered in the Court complying with the rules contained in Orders 6 and 7, CPC. Order 6 and 7, CPC, lay down the particulars to be contained in a plaint or requirements of a plaint. Under Section 2(2), CPC, a 'decree' is to be passed in a regular 'suit'. Under Section 4 of the Act any dispute regarding the rent payable in respect of any house, shall be determined by the 'Court'. According to Section 2(a) of the Act Court means the Court of ordinary Civil jurisdiction constituted under the relevant laws. Therefore, the Court which is to decide or pass order under Section 4 of the Act is the said constituted Court of the Civil jurisdiction having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Similarly, the Court which is to pass a decree for eviction is the said Court. Procedure for determination of fair rent is provided under Section 4 of the Act. Under Section 4(1) of the Act, a proceeding is to be started on an application made either by the landlord or the tenant. The application cannot be said to be a plaint because all the requirements of the plaint as stated above are not contained. The course of action of the Court for passing an order under Section 4 of the Act is provided under the Act itself. The course of action of the Court is the proceeding under Section 4 of the Act is not the same as that of a 'suit'. Therefore, the proceeding is not a 'suit'. This view of mine is further more strengthened by the provision under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act provides that a landlord or a tenant aggrieved by any decision or order of the Court under the provision of Section 4 of the Act shall have a right to appeal against the same as if such decision or order were a decree in a 'suit' for ejectment of the tenant from the house. Under Section 8 of the Act, therefore, an order or a decision under Section 3 of the Act will be deemed to be a decree for the purpose of appeal under Section 8 of the Act; although such an order or a decision itself is not a decree as understood under Section 2(2), CPC. In this view of the matter, merely because a proceeding is instituted in the Court of the ordinary civil jurisdiction to decide the proceeding under Section 4 of the Act is not a 'suit' and as such the Misc. case No. 10 of 1985 out of which Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1985 arose is not a 'suit'.