TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tenant reoccupying premises post-eviction not a trespasser but tenant; Court upholds eviction order and Controller's powers</h1> <h3>Kandula Prabhakar Rao Versus Tumulu Lakshmanamurty And Anr.</h3> Kandula Prabhakar Rao Versus Tumulu Lakshmanamurty And Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of the status of a tenant evicted and forcibly reoccupied the premises in a House Rent Control case.2. Authority of the House Rent Controller to set aside an ex parte order of eviction and restore the house rent control case for fresh hearing.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the scenario where a tenant, evicted through an ex parte order but later forcibly reoccupied the premises, contested a House Rent Control case. The Court clarified that the tenant, by seeking to set aside the eviction order and participating in the proceedings, acknowledged the continuation of the case. The Court held that once the ex parte order was set aside, any actions taken based on it became void. As the tenant was not a trespasser, but a tenant, the adverse findings against him by the House Rent Controller were valid, justifying the appellate authority's eviction order.2. The second issue pertained to the authority of the House Rent Controller to set aside an ex parte order and restore the case for fresh hearing. The Court extensively discussed the powers of the House Rent Controller, emphasizing that it functions as a tribunal akin to a Court. Referring to past judgments, the Court established that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) are applicable to proceedings before the House Rent Controller unless specifically excluded. The Court cited various cases to support the Controller's jurisdiction to set aside ex parte orders and restore cases for fresh disposal. Additionally, the Court highlighted the distinction between inherent and implied powers of tribunals, noting that the House Rent Controller, being a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, possesses implied powers necessary for executing its functions.3. The judgment also addressed the applicability of specific provisions like Order 41, Rule 23 of the C.P.C. to appeals under the Orissa House Rent Control Act. The Court clarified that certain provisions may not be applicable if inconsistent with the Act, and decisions must align with the Act's requirements. The Court dismissed the submissions challenging the Controller's powers, citing precedents and established principles. Ultimately, both writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the Controller's authority to set aside ex parte orders and conduct fresh hearings in House Rent Control cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
