1. Suit for ejectment of tenant under U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 — Permission to sue granted by Commissioner on revision. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 294
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
Ram Swarup and others, Appellants
Versus
Shikar Chand and another. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. J. P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. A. Ranganandham Chetty, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. V. Rangam. Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
A.RANGANADHAM CHETTY, A.V.RANGAM, B.P.JHA, J.P.GOYAL
A.RANGANADHAM CHETTY, A.V.RANGAM, B.P.JHA, J.P.GOYAL
Statutory bars on civil court jurisdiction do not apply to orders that are nullities (e.g., violation of natural justice). Additionally, the revisional power of a statutory authority to correct "illegal" orders is not limited to jurisdictional errors unless the statute expressly restricts it to such errors.
Headnote:(A) U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 7-F and 16 - Permission for eviction - Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts - Order of the Commissioner - Nullity - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - Statutory bar under Section 3(4) and Section 16 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts to challenge the correctness or propriety of orders passed by the appropriate authorities - However, this bar does not operate where the plea raised goes to the root of the matter and would render the impugned order a nullity in the true legal sense, such as where the order is passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction, in violation of mandatory statutory provisions, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. (Paras 12, 13, 15)
(B) Revisional Power of Commissioner - Section 3(3) - Power to interfere if the District Magistrate acted illegally, with material irregularity, or wrongly refused to act - Such power is not limited to jurisdictional errors similar to the jurisdiction conferred on a High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - The terms used in the statute are unambiguous and empower the Commissioner to correct errors committed by the District Magistrate, regardless of whether they pertain to jurisdiction. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
Landlords filed a suit for ejectment of tenants from a shop. Permission to file the suit was initially refused by the District Magistrate but was subsequently granted by the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction. The High Court held that the permission granted by the Commissioner was invalid, reasoning that the Commissioner's revisional power was limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, similar to the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction does not apply to orders that are nullities. It further held that the Commissioner's revisional power under the Act is broader than the revisional power of a High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and is not restricted to jurisdictional errors.
Issues: Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is completely excluded regarding the validity of permission granted by the Commissioner and whether the Commissioner's power under Section 3(3) is limited to jurisdictional errors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while Sections 3(4) and 16 generally bar civil courts from questioning the merits of an order, they cannot prevent a court from declaring an order a nullity if it was passed in violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure or mandatory law. Furthermore, the terms "illegally" and "material irregularity" in Section 3(3) empower the Commissioner to correct errors beyond mere jurisdictional failures, as the statute does not refer to considerations of jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Whether civil courts' jurisdiction is excluded regarding the validity of permission granted by the Commissioner — Whether the Commissioner's permission was invalid for lack of jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 20 )
3. Statutory bars exclude challenges to correctness or propriety but not pleas that an order is a nullity — Commissioner's revisional power under Section 3(3) is not limited to jurisdictional errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 21 , 22 )
4. Civil court jurisdiction is not barred when the challenged order is a nullity — Revisional power under Section 3(3) allows correction of errors beyond jurisdictional limits. (Para 13 , 15 , 21 , 22 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — District Court decree restored. (Para 25 )
6. Does a statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction prevent challenges to the validity of an administrative order?
Generally, yes, but the bar does not operate where the plea goes to the root of the matter, rendering the order a nullity, such as orders passed by an unauthorized person or in violation of natural justice. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 )
7. Is the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 3(3) of the Act limited to jurisdictional errors similar to Section 115 of the CPC?
No. The power is broader and allows interference if the District Magistrate acted illegally, with material irregularity, or wrongly refused to act, regardless of whether the error relates to jurisdiction. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. What constitutes an order that is a nullity in the legal sense for the purpose of bypassing a jurisdictional bar?
An order is a nullity if passed by a person not authorized by law, by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction, or in violation of mandatory statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. (Para 13 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : Appellant No. 1, Lala Ram Swarup, and five other members of his family sued the two respondents, Shikar Chand and his son, for ejectment from the shop situated in Qasba Chandausi, Bazar Waram, on the allegation that the said premises had been let out to the respondents to conduct their shop on a monthly rent with effect from the 11th April 1952, for a year. At the time when the present suit was brought, the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act III of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act ) was in force. Section 3 of the Act imposes certain restrictions on the landlord s right to eject his tenant from the premises to which the Act applies. Broadly stated, the effect of the provisions contained in S. 3 (1) is that a landlord can evict his tenant if he satisfies two conditions. The first condition is that he must obtain the permission of the District Magistrate to file such a suit; and the second condition is that he must prove the existence of one or the other of the seven grounds enumerated in Cls. (a) to (g) of S. 3 (1). We shall presently refer to the relevant provisions of this section.
2. In their plaint, the appellants pleaded that they needed the premises in suit to carry on their own businesses in the shop, and they alleged that they had applied for permission to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, under s. 3 (1) of the Act; that the said permission had been refused by him, whereupon they had moved the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction under S. 3 (2) of the Act; and that the Commissioner had given them permission to file the suit that is how the appellants claimed to have satisfied both the conditions prescribed by Section 3 (1). The appellants further claimed ejectment of the respondents and asked for a decree for damages for use and occupation of the suit premises form 11th April 1953 to 11th July 1954 @ Rs.35 per month. The suit (No. 349 of 1954) was filed on the 14th July 1954.
3. The respondents resisted the claim made by the appellants on several grounds. They urged that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties; that the permission to sue granted to the appellants by the Commissioner was not valid in law, that the rent note executed by them was not admissible in evidence: and that the notice given by the appellants under S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was also invalid in law.
4. On these pleadings, the learned Munsif, Chandausi, framed appropriate issues. Evidence was led by both the parties in support of their respective contentions. The learned trial Judge recorded findings in favour of the appellants on all the issues and decreed their suit with costs on the 25th March 1955.
5. The respondents then preferred an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1955) in the Court of the District Judge, Moradabad, and urged that the findings recorded by the trial Judge were erroneous and asked for the reversal of the decree passed by him. The learned District Judge rejected the respondents contentions and confirmed the decree under appeal on the 2nd June 1955.
6. That took the respondents to the High Court at Allahabad in second appeal (No. 1106 of 1955). The learned single Judge of the said High Court who heard this appeal, upheld the respondents contention that the permission granted by the Commissioner under S. 3 (3) of the Act as invalid in law; and so, he came to the conclusion that the appellants suit was incompetent. This judgment was delivered on the 26th July 1956. The learned Judge, however, allowed the appellants leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal was placed before a larger Bench of three learned Judges of the High Court, because it was thought that the question raised by the appellants was of some importance. On the question as to whether the permission granted by the Commissioner was valid or not, the learned Judges who heard the appeal differed. Two of the learned Judges held that the said permissi
