1996 (12) TMI 408 - HC - Indian Laws

Revision petition not maintainable against Rent Control Court interim order

The court held that a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. ... Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - persona designata - distinction between 'Court' and 'Civil Court' for applicability of Section 115 CPC - interim/interlocutory orders and revisional jurisdiction - statutory tribunals/special Courts not being full fledged Civil Courts unless C.P.C. is made wholly applicableRevision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - distinction between 'Court' and 'Civil Court' for applicability of Section 115 CPC - interim/interlocutory orders and revisional jurisdiction - Whether a revision under Section 115 CPC lies against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that although the Rent Control Court has been judicially recognised as a 'Court' and is not a persona designata (following the Supreme Court in Gopalan), that classification alone does not import applicability of Section 115 CPC. Section 115 is available only in respect of 'Courts subordinate to the High Court' in the sense of civil Courts governed by the Code (see Section 3 CPC). The Rent Control Act makes only certain provisions of the C.P.C. applicable and the tribunal is a statutory forum exercising specialized jurisdiction; it is not a full fledged civil Court for the purposes of invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 115. The Court contrasted situations where the C.P.C. is made expressly applicable (e.g., Arbitration Act, where Section 41 renders CPC provisions applicable and Section 115 is available) with enactments which selectively apply provisions of the CPC. Authorities concerning Labour Courts and other statutory tribunals were applied to support the proposition that being a 'Court' for some purposes does not convert a statutory tribunal into a Civil Court amenable to Section 115. Consequently an interim/interlocutory order of the Rent Control Court is not revisable under Section 115 CPC. The Court expressly did not decide whether an appeal or writ petition would lie and left open other remedies. [Paras 5, 6, 11, 14]Revision under Section 115 CPC against an interim order of the Rent Control Court is not maintainable because the Rent Control Court, though a 'Court' and not a persona designata, is not a Civil Court within the hierarchy governed by the C.P.C. for purposes of Section 115.Final Conclusion: The revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable; the order is without prejudice to the petitioner pursuing any other legally available remedy. Issues Involved:1. Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court.2. Whether the Rent Control Court is considered a 'Court' or a 'persona designata.'3. Applicability of Section 115 of the CPC to decisions made by the Rent Control Court.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC:The central issue addressed in this judgment is whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC can be filed against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. The petitioner argued that since the order in question was procedural and not appealable, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC should be maintainable. However, the court concluded that even though the Rent Control Court is a 'Court' and not a 'persona designata,' it is not a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. Therefore, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Control Court.2. Rent Control Court: Court or Persona Designata:The judgment extensively discusses whether the Rent Control Court is a 'Court' or a 'persona designata.' The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Gopalan v. Aboobacker, which held that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are not persona designata but are Courts. This view was reinforced by the decision in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan Peruvad, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling. The court concluded that the Rent Control Court is indeed a 'Court' for certain purposes, such as the applicability of the Limitation Act.3. Applicability of Section 115 CPC:For Section 115 CPC to apply, the court in question must be a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court. The judgment clarified that the Rent Control Court, although a 'Court,' is not a full-fledged Civil Court governed by the CPC. The court cited various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, which held that certain tribunals, even if they function judicially, are not Civil Courts under the CPC. The court also referred to the Full Bench decision in Ouseph Vareed v. Mary, which stated that Rent Control Courts and Appellate Authorities are special tribunals and do not form part of the hierarchy of established Civil Courts.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Rent Control Court, although a 'Court,' is not a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 115 CPC. Consequently, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. The revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue other legally available remedies, such as a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.