Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J.: in this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Principal Judge, City, Civil Court, Bombay, dated February. 14, 1964 the only question is whether the delegation by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of his functions under Ss. 105B to 105E to certain officers of the Corporation was valid and proper. This question arises in the following circumstances: One Govind Hari was a monthly tenant of room No. 23 of a chawl at Chandanwadi. After his death in 1961 the tenancy developed on his widow Anusuyabai, who took in a boarder. The chawl belonged to the Municipal Corporation and proceedings were taken to eject Anusuyabai and the boarder under chapter VI-A of the Municipal Corporation Act. These proceedings were initiated by one of the officers to whom the powers of the Commissioner were delegated by him under S. 68 of the Act. After due enquiry the officer passed an order evicting these persons. An appeal was filed under S. 105F of the Act before the Bombay City Civil Court. In that appeal it was held that the delegation was not proper inasmuch as the judicial functions of the Commissioner under Ss. 105B to 105E had been delegated to exercise under the Commissioner s control and subject to his revision. The learned judge pointed out that judicial or quasi-judicial power could not ordinarily be delegated and, in any event, it could not be delegated so that the control over the decision was kept by the Commissioner. He, therefore, held that the officer who had passed the order was not properly invested with jurisdiction and the order was thus a nullity.

2. The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is an Act of 1888 and it has been amended frequently. Section 68 is one of the original sections and it provides as follows:

68. Municipal officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers, etc, of the Commissioner.

(1) Any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner by any of the sections, sub-sections or clauses mentioned in sub-section (2) may be exercised, performed or discharged, under the Commissioner s control and subject to his revision and to such conditions and limitations if any, as he shall think fit to prescribe, by any municipal officer whom the Commissioner generally or specially either by name or by virtue of office, empowers in writing in this behalf; and in each of the said sections, sub-sections and clauses the word "Commissioner shall, to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered, be deemed to include such officer.

2. The sections, sub-sections and clause of this Act referred to in sub-section (1) are the following namely:-

* * * *

Section 105B.

Section 105C

Section 105D

Section 105E

* * * *"

A reference to Ss. 105B, 105C, 105D and 105E was inserted by the Maharashtra Act XIV of 1961. These sections are in Chapter 6A which was also newly added by the same Act. It is not necessary to refer to these sections, except a portion from S. 105B which brings into prominence the action taken by the Corporation against the respondents:

"105B Power to evict person from corporation premises.

(1) Where the Commissioner is satisfied-

(a) that the person authorised to occupy any corporation premises has, whether before or after the commencement of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1960,-

* * * *

(i)

(ii) sub-let, contrary to the terms or conditions of his occupation, the whole or any part of such premises; or

* * * *"

* * * *

the Commissioner may notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, by notice ******* order that that person as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises. shall vacate them within one month of the date of the service of the notice."

It will be noticed that S. 68 was originally intended to cover very different matters because Chapter 6A could not have been in contemplation. When Chapter 6A was added and a reference to Ss. 105B