A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark judgment in Rai Brij Raj Krishna and Another v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers, 1951 SCR 145, determined the jurisdictional boundary between the civil courts and the House Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. The case clarified that the Rent Controller possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine the existence of conditions such as non-payment of rent, which are prerequisites for granting eviction under Section 11 of the Act. The Court held that even if the Controller’s decision is erroneous on facts or law, it cannot be questioned in civil court due to the finality clause embedded in the statute. This judgment reaffirmed the scope and independence of administrative tribunals under special statutes and emphasized a strict interpretation of jurisdictional ouster clauses in such legislations. The case also navigated through the doctrine of merger, administrative finality, and the limitation on judicial review, reinforcing that the statutory framework has to be respected where special jurisdiction is conferred.

Keywords: Rent Control Act, House Controller jurisdiction, eviction, non-payment of rent, civil court bar, administrative finality, Section 11 Bihar Rent Act, statutory interpretation, ouster of jurisdiction, landlord-tenant law.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Rai Brij Raj Krishna and Another v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal arising from Appeal Suit No. 2280 of 1948

iii) Judgement Date:
2nd February 1951

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Saiyid Fazl Ali, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, and Chandra Sekhara Aiyar, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali

vii) Citation:
1951 SCR 145

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947
Section 18 of the same Act
Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None specifically overruled, but High Court decision reversed.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Landlord-Tenant Law, Rent Control, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction of Special Tribunals

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose in the context of disputes under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, a special welfare legislation enacted to regulate eviction and safeguard tenants. It was brought by a tenant who challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority under the Act. The High Court interfered, holding that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction as the facts didn’t constitute “non-payment” of rent in law. However, the Supreme Court analyzed whether civil courts could review such decisions where the statute expressly grants finality to administrative determinations.

This litigation emerged during post-colonial India’s legal reform phase, reflecting the increasing tension between common law doctrines and statutory tribunals created by the legislature to deliver expedited and socially beneficial justice. The judgment hence stands as a pivotal clarification on when and how civil courts can or cannot intervene in administrative actions rendered under rent control statutes.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondents (tenants) occupied blocks of premises belonging to the appellants (landlords) at a monthly rent of Rs. 112. Arrears for March, April, and May 1947 had accrued. On June 28, 1947, the respondents sent the pending rent via two cheques including June’s rent. The appellants refused to accept the cheques. Later, on August 4, the respondents sent a postal money order which too was not accepted.

On August 12, 1947, the appellants filed for eviction under Section 11(1)(a) of the Bihar Rent Control Act, claiming non-payment of rent. On August 30, the tenants deposited the amount with the House Controller. Despite this, the Controller ordered eviction on November 10, 1947, stating the tenants had defaulted.

On appeal, the Commissioner upheld the eviction order on April 27, 1948. The tenants then filed a suit before the civil court for declaration that the Controller’s order was illegal and ultra vires, leading ultimately to the High Court setting aside the eviction. This Supreme Court appeal followed.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to question the Rent Controller’s decision on the issue of non-payment of rent.

ii) Whether the Rent Controller’s erroneous finding on non-payment could be reopened by civil courts.

iii) Whether the statutory finality clause under Section 18(3) barred civil court review of orders made under Section 11.

iv) Whether rent deposited post initiation of eviction proceedings could cure default under Section 11(1)(a).

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The appellants argued that the tenants did not pay rent on time, satisfying the grounds for eviction under Section 11(1)(a). Rent is due monthly, and tenants failed to pay for three months. The argument emphasized that payment through cheques does not amount to legal tender unless accepted. Hence, refusal to accept cheques or M.O. did not negate the default.

It was further argued that under the Act, the Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the fact of non-payment. Once the Controller makes that determination, Section 18(3) declares it final and not open to judicial review. The appeal to the Commissioner being already exhausted, the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

They also relied on Queen v. Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax (21 QBD 313) and Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan (LR 5 PC 417), asserting that when a tribunal is empowered to decide facts and law, its decisions, even if wrong, cannot be interfered with unless there’s a jurisdictional defect.

The argument highlighted that the Act is self-contained and excludes the application of the general Transfer of Property Act principles, especially Section 111, due to the overriding clause in Section 11 of the Bihar Act.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The tenants argued that there was no real default, as payment had been attempted through cheques and money order before eviction was sought. The delay was not willful. Since the rent was eventually deposited with the Controller’s office, the cause for eviction ceased to exist before the eviction order.

The High Court accepted this argument, ruling that irregular payment does not amount to non-payment under Section 11, particularly in light of the Act’s objective to prevent unreasonable evictions.

The respondents argued that the Controller wrongly assumed jurisdiction and thus the civil court had the authority to correct the jurisdictional error. They relied on equitable principles and suggested that strict construction of “non-payment” would defeat the beneficial purpose of the Act.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 11, Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 – Grounds of eviction
ii) Section 18(3), Bihar Act – Finality of Controller’s and Commissioner’s decisions
iii) Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Determination of lease
iv) Section 16, Bihar Act – Powers of enquiry by the Controller

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that Section 11 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Controller to decide if non-payment of rent has occurred. The statute empowers the Controller not only to assess facts but to pass orders of eviction.

It observed that Section 18(3) expressly bars any court from entertaining appeals or revisions against the Controller’s or Commissioner’s orders. The civil courts therefore cannot sit in appeal over such findings, even if erroneous.

The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on equitable considerations and Transfer of Property Act, as Section 11 begins with a non-obstante clause and is meant to be interpreted independently. It confirmed that once the Controller decided there was non-payment, the civil court could not re-evaluate the matter.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court indicated that while procedural fairness is important, statutory finality must be respected unless decisions are patently ultra vires. The legislature’s intent to restrict civil court jurisdiction is clear and overrides equitable interpretation where express provision exists.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Jurisdictional Finality: When statute vests finality in administrative decisions, courts cannot review those decisions on merits.

• Exclusive Jurisdiction: A special Act like the Bihar Rent Act grants the Controller exclusive jurisdiction over factual determinations like default.

• Non-obstante Clause Effect: Laws with non-obstante clauses must be interpreted independently from general laws unless explicitly stated.

• Tenant Protection Laws must be balanced with statutory procedure. Evictions must follow the mechanism but once followed, courts cannot interfere.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court in this case underscored a fundamental administrative law principle: where a statute gives an authority both the power to decide jurisdictional facts and the power to decide disputes, civil courts cannot intervene merely because the authority might have erred.

This case sets a crucial precedent for future rent control matters, where tribunals are often the first and final authority unless appeal is statutorily provided. It reinforces the idea that finality clauses in welfare legislations are to be respected, especially where adequate appeal provisions exist internally.

This judgment has been consistently followed in multiple cases like K.S. Venkataraman v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 49), confirming that jurisdictional decisions by statutory tribunals are immune from collateral attack unless ultra vires.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) Queen v. Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax, (21 QBD 313)
ii) Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan, LR 5 PC 417
iii) White v. Tyndall, (13 App. Cas. 263)
iv) K.S. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 – Sections 11, 16, 18
ii) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 111
iii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Procedural reference for inquiry powers