# Rajendra Kumar Karanwal v. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 635
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45102 of 2003
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-kumar-karanwal-v-smt-kamlesh-garg-and-others-40503
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 30 (5)-Scope of Revision-Order
the
petitioner
permitting
tenant
to
deposit the rent in court-in case of
refusal to accept the rent by the land
lord-District
Judge
by
impugned
judgment-exercised
the
power
of
revisional court and set-aside the order
passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)-held-in
view of decision of Anwar Ali caseRevisional
Court
acted
beyond
jurisdiction-No
appeal
or
revision
maintainable against the order passed by
Munsif under Section 30 (1) of the Act.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
636
Held: Para 4

In view of the provisions of Section 30
(1) and in view of the decision of Anwar
Ali (supra), in my opinion the revisional
court has acted beyond jurisdiction in
entertaining the revision under Section
115 of the C.P.C.
Case law discussed:
2002 (2) ARC-562 relied on
1964 ALJ 256

## Text

2 All] Rajendra Kumar Karanwal V. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others 635
experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or
as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the
authority to hear and decide for any
specified area all claims arising out of
deductions from the wages, or delay in
payment of wages, [of persons employed
or paid in that area, including all matters,
incidental to such claims;

....................:"

4. Section 18 provides for powers of
authorities appointed under Section 15
which is extracted below:-

"18.
Powers
of
authorities
appointed under Section 15- Every
authority appointed under sub-section (1)
of section 15 shall have all the powers of
a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the
purpose of "taking evidence and of
enforcing the attendance of witnesses and
compelling the production of documents,
and every such authority shall be deemed
to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of
section 195 and of (Chapter XXVI of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974.)"

5. From a conjoint reading of
Section 15 (1) with Section 18 of the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it is clear
that the authority empowered to decide
claims arising out of deduction from
wages is entrusted all the powers of Civil
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure
for the purposes of taking evidence and
for
attendance
and
compelling
the
protection of documents. Thus the said
authority has trapping of Court and is a
tribunal. Any order, thus, passed by
authority under Section 15 of the Payment
of Wages Act, 1936 is an order passed by
tribunal. The special appeal being barred
against an order of one Judge exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution arising out of a writ petition
from an order of tribunal, the preliminary
objection raised by counsel for the
respondents has substance.

6. The appeal is barred under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court
and
is
dismissed
as
not
maintainable. Appeal Dismissed.

---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45102 of 2003

Rajendra Kumar Karanwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Some Narayan Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma
Sri Namit Sharma

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 30 (5)-Scope of Revision-Order
the
petitioner
permitting
tenant
to
deposit the rent in court-in case of
refusal to accept the rent by the land
lord-District
Judge
by
impugned
judgment-exercised
the
power
of
revisional court and set-aside the order
passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)-held-in
view of decision of Anwar Ali caseRevisional
Court
acted
beyond
jurisdiction-No
appeal
or
revision
maintainable against the order passed by
Munsif under Section 30 (1) of the Act.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
636
Held: Para 4

In view of the provisions of Section 30
(1) and in view of the decision of Anwar
Ali (supra), in my opinion the revisional
court has acted beyond jurisdiction in
entertaining the revision under Section
115 of the C.P.C.
Case law discussed:
2002 (2) ARC-562 relied on
1964 ALJ 256

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1.

The
petitioner-tenant
has
challenged the order dated 24.3.2003
passed by the Special/Additional District
Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Revision No.
11 of 1997 (Annexure 6 to the writ
petition).

The brief facts leading to filing of the
writ petition are as under:

2. Smt. Pramod Kumari and two
minor children filed an application under
Section 30 (1) of the Act in the court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saharanpur
for depositing rent of the premises under
their tenancy. The said application was
registered as Misc. Case No. 14 of 1989.
The
respondent-landlord
filed
an
objection to the aforesaid application filed
by the tenant. The Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Saharanpur vide its order dated
22.11 .1996 held that there is relationship
of the landlord and tenant between the
parties and directed the tenant to handover
the amount of rent to the landlord and
directed the landlord to give the receipt of
the same and further observed that if the
landlords refuse to accept the rent, the
tenant will deposit the same in the court.
The respondent-landlord aggrieved by the
aforesaid order preferred a revision being
Civil Revision No. 11 of 1997 in the court
of District Judge under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. who vide its
order
dated
24.3.2003
allowed
the
revision and set aside the order of the
Civil Judge and rejected the application
filed by the tenant under Section 30 (1).
Thus, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that under the provisions of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 no-revision or
appeal lies before any authority or court
against the order passed by the Civil
Court under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act
No. 13 of 1972. Thus, the revision was
not maintainable and the order of the
revisional court entertaining the revision
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is wholly without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the decision of this Court reported in
2002 (2) ARC 562; Anwar Ali Versus
Additional District Judge. Moradabad
and others wherein this Court has held
that no appeal or revision lay against the
order passed by the Munsif under Section
30 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and
submitted that in view of the aforesaid
decision this writ petition deserves to be
allowed and the order of the revisional
court deserves to be quashed.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has. relied upon the full Bench
decision of this court reported in 1964
All. L.J. 256; Chatur Mohan and others
Versus Ram Behari Dixit. The Full
Bench decision relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent is under the
provisions of the old Act and there is no
pari materia provision under old Act like
section 30 (1). In view of the provisions
of Section 30 (1) and in view of the
decision of Anwar Ali (supra), in my
opinion the revisional court has acted
2 All] Ravi Kant Sharma V. State of U.P. 637
beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the
revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

5. In view of what has been statedabove, this writ petition is allowed. The
order of the revisional court dated
24.3.2003 is quashed. The parties shall
bear their respective costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
APPELLAATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11822
of 2005

Ravi Kant Sharma

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajeev sisodia

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Dinesh kumar
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.
Section-439-Bail
Applicationoffence under Section 498/323/506 IPCdemand of Rs.50,000/- and motor cycle
pulsar and some ornaments- prosecution
story
fully corroborated
by medical
evidence,-7
injuries
on
neck.-cruelty
committed by the applicant tried to
commit
the
murder
of
injured
by
hanging- duly supported by the presence
of injuries-considering the gravity of
offence-applicant
deserves
no
sympathy-held-not
entitled
to
be
released on bail.

Held: Para 6

In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the submissions made by the
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel for the complainant and the
learned AG.A., and after considering the
medical
examination
report
of
the
injured, it appears that the prosecution
story is fully corroborated by the medical
evidence
because
the
injured,
the
applicant being the consequently, she
received 7 injuries, the applicant being
the
husband
is
under
legal/social
obligation to maintain her wife in cool
and calm atmosphere but in the present
case it is not happened, and the cruelty
has been committed by the applicant and
others, even they tried to commit the
murder of the injuries on the neck, the
gravity of the offence is too much,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for any sympathy and is not entitled to
be released on bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh
kumar,counsel for the complainant and
the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant has applied for bail
in Case Crime No.245-C of 2005, P.S.
Kotwali Dehat District Bijnor.

3. From the perusal of the record, it
reveals that the applicant is the husband
of the injured Smt. Pallavi, whose
marriage was solemnized with her on
25.11.2003. The injured was subjected to
cruelty by the applicant other co-accused
persons with a view to fulfill the demand
of Pulser Motor cycle and Rs.50,000/- and
there was a demand of some ornament of
gold for the Jethani of the injured. The
injured conveyed all these things to her
father. The first informant and other
persons tried to persuade the in-laws of
the injured but they were not satisfied.
The injured was subjected to cruelty
continuously. The injured had written