HARDEO PRASAD Vs. DEPOT MANAGER BISCOMAUN HILSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 12-9-1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ist Court, Hilsa (hereinafter to be referred to as the Court below) in Execution Case No. 2 of 1992, whereby the objection petition filed by the judgment debtors-opposite parties has been allowed and the execution case filed by the petitioner-decree-holder has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this civil revision application are as follows :The opposite parties were occupying the premises belonging to the petitioner as tenants and the same was used as godown. The petitioner filed a petition for fixation of fair rent before the Controller being B.B.C. Case No. 5 of 1983-84 and the Controller after hearing the parties determined the fair rent of the tenanted premises at Rs. 1800/- per month in terms of the order dated 28-9-1987. As the opposite parties did not pay the rent so directed by the Controller, the petitioner filed an application before the Controller for passing necessary order directing the opposite parties to pay the rent so fixed by the Controller. The Controller accordingly directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay the rent as determined within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The opposite parties even thereafter did not pay the rent so determined by the Controller and the petitioner then levied execution case for realisation of the dues of rent, as determined by the Controller for the period 21-1-1982 to February, 1992, amounting to Rs. 1,27,950/-. The said execution case was filed in the Court below and the same was numbered as Execution Case No. 2 of 1992. The opposite parties appeared and filed objection in the said execution case, contending, inter alia, that the order passed by the Controller is not a decree and the execution case is not maintainable. It has further been contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution case for recovery of the fair rent, so determined by the Controller. It was further contended that the tenanted premises was vacated on 29-2-1992 and the entire dues have been paid. The opposite parties accordingly prayed for dismissal of the execution case.The Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the execution case is terms of the order dated 12-9-1995. The Court below held that the Controller has power only to determine the fair rent and it has no jurisdiction to make an order giving direction for payment of fair rent. The Court below further held that it is the Civil Court only which has jurisdiction to pass a decree for payment of arrears of rent. It has further held that the order passed by the Controller is not a decree and the execution proceeding is wholly misconceived.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Verma, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Court below has committed serious illegality in dismissing the execution proceeding by taking the view that the order of the Controller is inexecutable. Mr. Verma has further submitted that the order of the controller is a decree as contemplated under Section 23 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short) and, therefore, the said order can be executed by a Civil Court.On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, supported the order passed by the Court below by reiterating the reasons given in the said order.