2024 (12) TMI 1593 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery of arrears of rent to the petitioners - Eviction of the respondent - direction to make payment towards arrears of rent to the petitioners - HELD THAT - From bare perusal of the record it is apparent that the Tribunal has rightly observed that albeit affidavits of two witnesses have been produced but there is no entry in the order sheet that on which date the same have been taken on record. Even the Authority failed to frame issues and also failed to provide opportunity to led evidence to the parties to prove the issue framed by the Authority whereas framing of issue and grant of opportunity to the parties to led evidence to prove the said issue is necessary for decision under the Act 2011. From the record it is also evident that the Authority has not followed the procedure as enumerated under Section 10 of the Act 2011 and hence the Tribunal rightly held that the Authority failed to follow the procedure as provided under Section 10. Though there is no illegality or infirmity in the observation made by the Tribunal but the Tribunal instead of remanding back the matter to the Authority/SDO (R) for fresh adjudication set aside the order of the Authority without appreciating the fact that any wrong committed by the Authority/SDO (R) and any procedural defect should not be attributed to a party who has approached the authority under a particular statute. The Tribunal ought to have remanded back the matter to the Authority/SDO (R) for a fresh decision on the application filed by the petitioner who is a landlord. In the matter of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v National Building Material Supply Gurgaon 1969 (3) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court observed that Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake negligence inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Shankar Triyar v Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another 2005 (11) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT held that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh application under the Act 2011 before the Rent Control Authority and on filing of such application the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the Rent Control Authority (SDO) followed the procedural requirements under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, particularly Section 10, while passing the eviction order against the tenant.

- Whether the appeal preferred by the tenant before the Rent Control Tribunal was rightly allowed on the ground of procedural irregularities and non-compliance by the Authority.

- Whether the Rent Control Tribunal was justified in setting aside the eviction order without remanding the matter back to the Authority for fresh adjudication.

- The applicability and effect of procedural defects on substantive rights in the context of eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011

The relevant legal framework is Section 10 of the Act, 2011, which mandates that the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal shall exercise the same powers as vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit or appeal. This includes the framing of issues, recording of evidence, and adherence to procedural safeguards to ensure fair adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the Rent Control Authority failed to frame issues and did not provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the issues. Although affidavits of two witnesses were presented, the record did not indicate the dates on which these affidavits were taken on record. The Tribunal also noted that the application was not moved in conformity with the provisions of the Act, and the Authority acted by registering a revenue case rather than following the prescribed rent control procedure.

Applying the law to the facts, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings that the Authority did not comply with the procedural mandates of Section 10. The absence of issue framing and failure to allow evidence led to a procedural infirmity, undermining the validity of the eviction order.

The competing argument from the landlord was that the tenant defaulted on rent payments and refused to vacate the premises, warranting eviction. However, the Court emphasized that procedural compliance is essential to safeguard the parties' rights and ensure just adjudication.

The conclusion was that the Authority's order was passed in violation of the procedural requirements under the Act, 2011.

Issue 2: Legitimacy of the Rent Control Tribunal's Order Setting Aside the Eviction Order Without Remand

While the Tribunal correctly identified procedural lapses by the Authority, it proceeded to allow the tenant's appeal and set aside the eviction order outright, rather than remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Court referred to settled legal principles established by the Supreme Court, including:

• "Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure."
• Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or cause injustice.
• Procedural irregularities should not be used oppressively or punitively to deny justice.

These principles were drawn from authoritative precedents emphasizing that procedural errors must be cured and should not result in denial of substantive rights.

The Court reasoned that the Tribunal's approach of setting aside the order without remand was inappropriate because the procedural defects were curable. The tenant, as a party before the Authority, should not benefit from procedural lapses to the detriment of the landlord's substantive right to seek eviction for non-payment of rent.

Accordingly, the Court held that the proper course was to remand the matter to the Rent Control Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure.

Issue 3: Effect of Procedural Defects on Substantive Rights

The Court underscored the principle that procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights. The landlord's claim for eviction and arrears of rent is a substantive right accrued under the statute.

Drawing from precedent, the Court emphasized that procedural rules are facilitatory and should not be used as a tool to perpetuate injustice. The procedural lapses identified in the present case could be cured by following the proper procedure afresh, thereby protecting both parties' rights.

The Court's treatment of this issue reflects a balanced approach aimed at ensuring justice without allowing procedural technicalities to override substantive claims.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure."

- Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.

- The Rent Control Authority must follow the procedure as enumerated under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, including framing issues and allowing evidence to be led.

- The Rent Control Tribunal, upon finding procedural lapses by the Authority, should remand the matter for fresh adjudication rather than setting aside the order outright.

- The landlord's substantive right to seek eviction and recover arrears of rent cannot be defeated by procedural lapses that are curable.

- The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the landlord to file a fresh application before the Rent Control Authority, which shall decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by observations made in the Court's order.