RAMCHANDER K. GULRANI Vs. SUGRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions for the issue of a writ of certiorari and have been ably and Keenly contested. The Petitioners are two tenants and they have been directed by the Rent Controller to vacate the ground and the first floor respectively of the house occupied by them. The learned Advocates for the Petitioners have emphasized that the grounds on which the Rent Controller directed the vacating of the house are not approved of by the appellate authority and the grounds on which he maintained the order of eviction are contrary to natural justice. These are: that the big house occupied by the Respondent, Sugra Begum, has been given on rent by her to the University which is a good cause; that Sugra Begum's sons are minors and that she has to pay a staggering sum of thirteen lakhs of rupees towards arrears of Income Tax. The learned advocates argued that these grounds do not justify the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority as they do not come within the meaning of "reasonable cause" of Rent Control Order,1353 F. They argued further that all these grounds were the allied personal knowledge of the appellate authority; they formed the part of the record and their clients were not given a chance to rebut them; and that therefore, as no evidence was allowed, they cannot form part of the record and the writ should issue to set aside the order given in such a manner.

(2.) IN reply the learned Advocate, Mr. Ramgopal referred to the marginally cited cases Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers AIR 1915 SC 115; Mohsinali Mahomedali v. State of Bombay : AIR 1951 Bom 303; Bhagvandas v. Janaklal : AIR 1952 Pat 255; Kiron Chandra v. Kalidas Chatterjee, ILR (1943) Cal (3) and argued that in his submission no writ of certiorari can lie because both the Controller and the appellate authority have jurisdiction; that there is nothing to show that the jurisdiction on was wrongly assumed or exercised and on the authority of these cases this Court should not interfere even though the rules of evidence were not adhered to. He argued further that the Evidence Act applies only to judicial proceedings and it has been held that the Controller and the appellate authority over him are executive and non -judicial officers; that S. 8, Hyderabad Rent Control Order, expressly provides that the Controller should be satisfied after hearing the parties and there is no reference to the recording of evidence; and that omission to record evidence, therefore, does not affect Jurisdiction. The learned Advocate concluded by emphasizing again that jurisdiction the Controller and the appellate authority being quite clear, this Court should not interfere.