TMI Blog1951 (2) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May, 1942, having fallen into arrears, they remitted it along with the rent for June, on 28th June, 1947, by means of two cheques. As the appellants did not accept the cheques, on 4th August, 1947, the respondents remitted the amount subsequently by postal money order. On 12th August, 1947, the appellants, maintaining that there was non-payment of rent and hence the respondents were liable to be evicted, under section 11(1)(a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (Bihar Act III of 1947), applied to the House Controller for the eviction of the respondents from the premises. Section 11(1)(a) of the Act runs as follows :- Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary and subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appeal by the High Court, and they have accordingly preferred this appeal. 3. The High Court has delivered a somewhat elaborate judgment in the case, but it seems to us that the point arising in this appeal is a simple one. The main ground on which the respondents have attacked the order of eviction passed by the House Controller is that in fact there was no non-payment of rent, and, since no eviction can be ordered under the Bihar Act unless non-payment is established, the House Controller had no jurisdiction to order eviction. On the other hand, one of the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants is that there was non-payment of rent within the meaning of that expression as used in the Act, since the rent was not paid as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there has been non-payment of rent that he assumes jurisdiction. If the question of jurisdiction depends upon the decision of some fact or point of law, and if the court is called upon to decide such question, then such decision cannot be collaterally impeached (vide 12 Patna 117). In my opinion when the Controller assumed the jurisdiction on being satisfied that there was non-payment of rent and proceeded to pass an order of eviction. I think the Civil Court can have no jurisdiction to challenge the validity of such order. 4. The High Court did not however accepted this view and after refering to section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, proceeded to propound its own view in these words :- Regard being had to the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he enjoys under the ordinary law in the matter of determination of tenancies, but that it will have conferred very much larger power on the Controller than that possessed by the Civil Courts under the ordinary law in the matter of passing decrees for eviction of tenants. The principle of law and equity on which relief against forfeiture for 'non-payment of rent' is based, will have been completely abrogated, and the protection of a tenant in possession of a building instead of being enlarged will have been very much curtailed. A construction of these provisions, which is calculated to bring about these consequences, cannot and is not in accordance with the circumstances to which this Act was intended to apply and indeed cannot be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents in the same manner as is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 18 provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may within 15 days of the receipt of such order by him, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division, and it also prescribes the procedure for the hearing of the appeal. Sub-section (3) of this section states that the decision of the Commissioner and subject only to such decision, an order of the controller shall be final, and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law whether in a suit or other proceeding by way of appeal or revision. The Act thus sets up a complete mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do something more. When the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction, they also have to consider, whatever jurisdiction they give them whether there shall be any appeal from their decision, for otherwise there will be none. In the second of two cases I have mentioned it is an erroneous application of the formula to say that the tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist, because the legislature gave them juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
