Citation : 2007 Local Law (CG) 199
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to interfere in a long-running rent control dispute, holding that the revision filed before it was not maintainable. In an order delivered by Judge Dhirendra Mishra, the court dismissed a challenge to a June 14, 2001 decision of the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, which had rejected the applicant’s petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant had sought revision under Section 23E of the M.P. and C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, but the High Court found legal limits on its revisional powers meant the petition could not be entertained.
The court’s reasoning focused on the scope of Section 23E(2) of the Accommodation Control Act, which expressly requires the High Court to exercise, as far as may be, the same powers and procedures it would employ under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure when dealing with a subordinate court. Applying that framework, the bench observed that provisos and limitations applicable to Section 115 likewise shape the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under the Act. Relying on the Supreme Court precedents cited in the order Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers the court concluded the present revision was barred and therefore not maintainable.
The decision disposes of three connected interim applications lodged in the matter, identified as I.A. No. 6355/02, I.A. No. 6356/02 and I.A. No. 1933/02. For litigants and practitioners, the judgment is a reminder that statutory revision powers conferred on higher courts may be constrained by the procedural scheme imported from the Code of Civil Procedure, and that timely and properly framed applications remain essential to preserve revisional remedies.
While the order does not address the factual merits of the underlying tenancy dispute, its procedural thrust will matter to parties who seek to collaterally attack administrative or quasi-judicial orders under specialized statutes. Courts will continue to test maintainability under the twin lenses of the enabling statute and the procedural safeguards that the Supreme Court has made part of the revisional toolkit.
Case Details : Civil Revision No. 568 of 2001, Kanti Prasad Rathor vs. Gunwantin Ben Tank (09.03.2007)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Bhisma Kinger, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: M.K. Bhaduri, Adv. and P.K. Tulshyan, Adv. for legal heirs
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151
Cases Referred:
Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675; Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 659
======
नागरिक मामला – आवेदन की ग्राह्यता (Maintainability of Application)
आवेदक द्वारा सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 (CPC) की आदेश 6 नियम 17 एवं धारा 151 के तहत किया गया आवेदन अस्वीकार कर दिया गया था। इसके विरुद्ध वर्तमान पुनरीक्षण आवेदन दायर किया गया।
माननीय छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि मध्यप्रदेश एवं छत्तीसगढ़ आवास नियंत्रण अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 23E(2) के स्पष्ट अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि इस धारा के अंतर्गत दायर किसी भी पुनरीक्षण को निपटाते समय उच्च न्यायालय वही शक्तियाँ प्रयोग करता है और वही प्रक्रिया अपनाता है जो वह धारा 115 CPC के अंतर्गत करता है, जैसे कि किराया नियंत्रक प्राधिकारी की कार्यवाही उच्च न्यायालय के अधीनस्थ न्यायालय की हो।
इस आधार पर न्यायालय ने यह निर्णय दिया कि प्रस्तुत पुनरीक्षण ग्राह्य नहीं है (not maintainable)। अतः आवेदन को अस्वीकार कर दिया गया।
निष्कर्ष: धारा 23E(2) के तहत दायर पुनरीक्षण पर धारा 115 CPC के समान सीमाएँ लागू होती हैं। इसलिए इस मामले में पुनरीक्षण अस्वीकार्य पाया गया और आवेदन खारिज कर दिया गया।
