- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohammad Ismail v. Sakina Begum .
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns a dispute over rent fixation and recovery. The petitioner leased premises from the respondent at a rent of Rs. 45 per month. After the petitioner defaulted on rent payments for sixteen months (from July 1950 to October 1951), the respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears in the Small Causes Court. Subsequent to the suit's initiation, the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. The petitioner contended that the suit should have been stayed due to the pending application before the Rent Controller. The Small Causes Court rejected this contention and proceeded to pass a decree for rent recovery. The petitioner then filed a revision petition challenging the decision not to stay the suit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Small Causes Court ought to have stayed the suit for rent recovery pending the determination of fair rent by the Rent Controller.
- Whether the proceedings before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent bar or stay the civil suit for recovery of rent arrears.
- The applicability of Section 10 and Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding stay of suit due to parallel proceedings.
- The exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to stay or set aside a decree when a suit was not stayed.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The suit filed in the Small Causes Court should have been stayed because an application for fixation of fair rent was pending before the Rent Controller.
- Relied on the precedent Dulhanmal Rizumal v. Abdul Kadar (AIR 1950 MP 8) to argue that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted when a special tribunal exists for the same matter.
- Requested the court to exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to stay the suit in the interest of justice.
Respondent's Arguments
- The rent was admitted to be due for sixteen months, making it unnecessary to await the Rent Controller's decision before passing a decree.
- Distinguished the present case from those where proceedings before the Rent Controller predated the suit, emphasizing that the petitioner's application for fair rent was filed after the suit.
- Asserted that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to grant a rent decree, which is exclusively within the civil court's competence.
- Argued that the petitioner cannot invoke inherent powers to stay the suit after allowing arrears to accrue and after the suit has been filed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dulhanmal Rizumal v. Abdul Kadar, AIR 1950 MP 8 | Jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted pro tanto when a special tribunal exists for fixation of fair rent; suit should be stayed if proceedings before tribunal predate suit. | The court distinguished this case because the petitioner's application before the Rent Controller was filed after the suit; thus, no stay was justified. |
| Mohd. Fakruddin v. Syed Roshan Ali Revn, Petn. No. 125/4 of 1951 | Small Causes Court directed to enforce judgment after reasonable rent fixed by Rent Controller. | Followed as an example of coordination between rent fixation and suit enforcement. |
| P.C. Gangulee v. Smt. Kadhuri Devi, 6 Dom LR (Pat) 167 | Pending proceeding for fixation of fair rent does not warrant stay of suit for rent arrears. | Applied to hold that no stay was warranted in the present case. |
| Grahams Trading Co. (SIC) Ltd. v. Chandulal Parmanand, AIR 1935 Sind 228 | No application under Section 10 CPC for stay lies merely because suit in respect of same subject matter is instituted in another court. | Supported the view that Section 10 CPC does not apply where one proceeding is not a suit or where subject matter and relief differ. |
| Balkishan v. Kishan Lai, 11 All 148 | Section 12 CPC prevents concurrent courts from entertaining parallel litigation on same cause of action, subject matter, and relief. | Clarified that subject matter and relief must be substantially the same to warrant stay; not applicable here as Rent Controller cannot grant rent decree. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the distinction between proceedings before the Rent Controller and suits in civil courts. It emphasized that the Rent Controller’s role is limited to fixing a fair rent and does not include granting a decree for rent arrears, which is within the civil court’s jurisdiction. The court found that Section 10 of the CPC, which allows stay of suit when another suit involving the same cause is pending, does not apply because proceedings before the Rent Controller are not suits and the relief and subject matter differ.
The court further noted that the petitioner’s application to fix fair rent was filed after the suit for arrears was instituted, and therefore the petitioner could not rely on the court’s inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to stay the suit as a matter of justice. The petitioner’s delay (laches) in filing the rent fixation application after the suit was initiated was held to be unjustifiable, as it caused unnecessary expense to the respondent.
The court also reasoned that once a decree has been passed, there is no valid ground to set it aside merely because the suit was not stayed. It acknowledged that had the petitioner sought revision immediately after refusal to stay, the court might have considered a stay in the interest of justice, but that was not the case here.
Holding and Implications
The revision petition is dismissed with costs.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the decree for rent recovery passed by the Small Causes Court stands affirmed. The petitioner cannot delay suit proceedings by filing an application for fair rent fixation after arrears have accrued and the suit has been instituted. The court clarified the limited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and the inapplicability of stay provisions under Sections 10 and 12 of the CPC in such circumstances. No new precedent was created; the decision reinforces existing principles distinguishing the roles of rent control tribunals and civil courts.
Acts/Rules/Orders: Hyderabad Rent Control Act - Section 6; Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 (CPC) - Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 (CPC) - Section 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 (CPC) - Section 151; Hyderabad Rent Control Order
Cases Referred: Dulhanmal Rizumal v. Abdul Kadar AIR 1950 MP 8; Mohd. Fakruddin v. Syed Roshan Ali Revn. Petn. No. 125/4 of 1951; P.C. Gangulee v. Smt. Kadhuri Devi 6 Dom LR (Pat) 167; Grahams Trading Co. (SIC) Ltd. v. Chandulal Parmanand AIR 1935 Sind 228; Balkishan v. Kishan Lai 11 All 148
Disposition: Petition Dismissed
Citing Reference: Discussed 5
Case Note:Tenancy - Fixation of rent - It was contended that suit should have been stayed by Small Causes Court and not passed a decree when it was brought to its notice that an application for fixation of fair rent was pending before Rent Controller - Held, in present case, after suit was filed in Small Causes Court, applicant filed a petition for fair rent to be fixed before Rent Controller - There was no justification for allowing Petitioner to utilise his own laches to disadvantage of Respondent by putting him to unnecessary expense and then asking court to exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as being necessary for ends of justice - Revision dismissed.
ORDER
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
1. In this revision the only point that has been pressed is that the Small Causes Court ought to have stayed the suit and not passed a decree when it was brought to its notice that an application for fixation of fair rent was pending before the Rent Controller. The lower court rejected the contention of the applicant on the ground that, since it was admitted by the Petitioner that rent was due for sixteen months from July, 1950 to October, 1951, there was no necessity to await the decision of the Rent Controller. The Petitioner had taken the leased premises from the Respondent on a rent of Rs. 45/- per month with respect to which he had, after the suit was filed in the Small Causes Court, applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. The learned Advocate for the revision-Petitioner argues on the authority of Dulhanmal Rizumal v. Abdul Kadar AIR 1950 MP 8 that the Small Causes Court ought to have stayed the suit. In the aforesaid case it was decided that in a suit for recovery of rent in which the quantum of rent recoverable by the landlord is in contest and
where a special tribunal is created for the determination of the question the jurisdiction of Civil Courts must be deemed to have been taken away pro tanto, while such tribunal exists; and as the determination of this question is not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, there cannot be a formal expression of an adjudication which so far as the court expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit.
2. This judgment was followed by my learned brother Dr. Siadat Ali Khan in an unreported judgment in the case of Mohd. Fakruddin v. Syed Roshan Ali Revn. Petn. No. 125/4 of 1951 dated the 5th October, 1951 in which he directed the Small Causes Court to write and enforce the judgment after a reasonable rent is fixed by the Rent Controller. As against this judgment there is a judgment of the Patna High Court in P. C. Gangulee v. Smt. Kadhuri Devi 6 Dom LR (Pat) 167, where it was held that there is no warrant for the proposition that because a proceeding for the fixation of fair rent is pending before the Controller, the suit pending before the Munsif for arrears of rent should be stayed.
3. It may here be pointed out that under Section 6 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Order any claim for difference due to the tenant after fixation of fair rent can be enforced as against the landlord, either by adjustment by the landlord according to the tenant's will or by a claim for the payment of the excess paid to him in accordance with the fair rent fixed. There is, in my view, a great difference in proceedings under the Rent Control Order for fixation of fair rent and a suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of rent due. The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to give a rent decree. That is the function of the Civil Court. In these circumstances, there appears to be no valid ground for staying the proceedings of a Civil Court until adjudication by rent control tribunal, The proceedings for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller are therefore, not covered by the provisions' of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although "Court" has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and might include a tribunal such us is constituted, under the Rent Control Law, yet before a suit can be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the subject-matter of the suit which is being adjudicated, the relief prayed for, and the power to grant it must substantially be the same in the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the suit in. the Small Causes Court. Further, the suit which is sought to be stayed must be filed in the same court, or in any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief before it can be stayed under the said section. The section also does not apply, to a case where one of the two proceedings is not a suit. In Grahams Trading Co. (India) Ltd. v. Chandulal Parmanand AIR 1935 Sind 228 at pg. 231, where objections to an award were preferred in a court, it was held that no application under Section 10 of. the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of proceedings lies on the ground that a suit in respect of the same subject-matter has been instituted in another court by the applicant.
4. The principle upon which a subsequent suit is' stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877) is, as observed by Mahmood J. in the case of -
Balkishan v. Kishan Lai 11 All 148 as follows:
The object of the rule contained in Section 12 of the Code is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from, simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the. same subject-matter and the same relief. The policy of the law is to confine the plain tiff to one litigation, thus obviating the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two or more courts in respect of 'the same relief.
It may be observed here that under Section 12 )of the old Code it was essential that both the ;suits should have prayed for the same relief. Though, under section 10 of the present code identity of relief claimed for is not now necessary, still' it is necessary that the entire subject matter of the two suits should be the same. Even if the proceedings before the Rent Controller can be deemed to be a suit it can to be said that the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Rent Controller is before he came court or any other court in India having Jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, in that the Rent Controller has no power under the Rent Control Law to grant a decree or rent All that the Rent Controller can do to fix a fair rent and leave it to the tenant there to have the excess adjusted or claim the suit. In these circumstances, no Suit can be stayed under Sec. 10 of the order Civil Procedure. The cases cited by Rege J., In Dulhanmal Rizumal v. Abdur kadar AIR 1950 MP 8. are with respect to a case where either the suit could have been stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or where the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 the Code of Civil Procedure stayed the suit before the proceedings in the lower court conclude in a decree.
5. In the Madhya Bharat case cited above Dulhanmal Rizumal. v. Abdul Kadar AIR 1950 MP 8 the applications were made to the Rent Controller prior to the institution of the suit for the agreed rent. In the Patna case P. C. Gangulee v. Smt. Kadhuri Devi 6 Dom LR 167 the suit was filed after proceedings for eviction had been commenced and on the same day the application for fair rent was presented before the Rent Controller appears to me that there is a distinction between a case where the proceedings before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent were taken after a suit was filed and a case where the suit was filed after the fair rent proceedings were already pending before the Rent Control Tribunal Rege J. in the Madhya Bharat case has made it clear that where another tribunal was seized of the matter prior to the institution of the rent suit it should have been stayed pending the determination of the fair rent. The Ratio Decidendi in both the cases was not based on a consideration of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure but appears to have been grounded in the Court's inherent power to stay a suit if the ends of justice required it. Even on that basis, in my view, if the tenant allowed "arrears of rent to accrue for such a considerable time as to force the landlord to have recourse to a suit for the recovery thereof, he cannot, after the suit is filed, invoke the inherent power of the Court by asking for a stay on the ground that he has filed an application for 'fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller.
6. In this case, after the suit was filed on 3th November 1951, in the Small Causes Court, the applicant filed a petition for fair rent to be fixed before the Rent Controller on 20th December 1951. There is, in my view, no justification for allowing the Petitioner to utilise his own laches to the disadvantage of the Respondent by putting him to unnecessary expense and then asking the court to exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as being necessary for the ends of justice.
7. In any case, after a decree has been, granted, there is no valid reason for setting it aside, merely on the ground that the suit was not stayed. It would have been perhaps a different matter had a revision been filed immediately after the lower court refused to stay the suit, in which case having regard to the facts in each case, it may be considered in the interests of justice to stay the suit in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but that is not the case here.
8. In the result, the revision is dismissed with costs.
Alert