Court Dismisses Plea for Local Investigation to Establish Premises as Newly Constructed Building Exempt from Rent Control Act
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Romil Jain challenging orders from lower authorities that rejected his application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local investigation of a disputed property. The petitioner sought to establish that the premises were a newly constructed building, thereby exempt from the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, underscores the discretionary nature of appointing a Commissioner under procedural law, emphasizing that such appointments are not meant to collect evidence or fill gaps in a litigant's case.
The case revolves around a property in Agra, initially belonging to Umrao Singh and his brothers, which was allegedly reconstructed during 2000-2002 by Ashok Kumar Jain after a family settlement. Romil Jain's defense hinged on the claim that the building was a new construction, exempt from the Act under Section 2, which governs the exemptions for newly constructed buildings.
Jain's applications were rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, who held that sufficient evidence regarding the age and nature of the construction was already available, negating the need for a local investigation. The Court concurred, stating that the appointment of a Commissioner is discretionary and should only be exercised when indispensable for proper adjudication, not for evidence collection.
Justice Srivastava noted that the power to issue commissions under Section 34 of the Act, read with Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, is intended to aid the adjudicatory process, not to allow parties to collect evidence. The judgment references previous cases, reinforcing the principle that local investigations should clarify ambiguities in existing evidence rather than serve as a tool for gathering new evidence.
The judgment further clarifies that the question of whether a building is a new construction exempt from the Act is a substantive inquiry under Section 2, separate from the procedural powers under Section 34. The Court emphasized that this procedural device should not be misused to strengthen a case's factual foundation.
The ruling is a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the limitations of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition reaffirms the correct exercise of judicial discretion by the authorities below and highlights the boundaries of legal processes in rent control disputes.
Bottom line:-
The discretionary power to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation under Section 34(1)(c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, read with Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, is meant to aid the adjudicatory process and cannot be invoked to collect evidence, fill lacunae, or strengthen the factual foundation of a litigant's case.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Sections 2, 34(1)(c); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 75, Order XXVI Rule 9; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 227
Romil Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937684
