1990 Supreme(Del) 8

High Court Of Delhi
HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 161 of 1989
Decided On : 01/16/1990

A Statutory Tribunal has only such powers as are specifically conferred upon it by the Statute under which it is created.

Headnote:

ARUN B. SAHARYA - BUILDING REGULATION - DEMOLITION ORDER - INHERENT POWER OF TRIBUNAL TO ADD PARTY - SCOPE OF APPEAL - REPRESENTATIVE SUIT - COLLUSION BETWEEN MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AND PETITIONERS - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF APPEAL - JUDICIAL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS - POWER OF TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE APPEAL - IMPLICATION OF ADVERSE REMARKS AGAINST CORPORATION AND OFFICERS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged an order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 347a of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, adding respondent No. 4 as a party to the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 343 of the Act. Petitioners were in occupation of part of property No. 1373, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, as tenants. Respondent No. 1 was the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Respondent No. 2 was its Zonal Engineer. Respondent No. 3 was the Tribunal. Respondent No. 4, Nirmala Devi, was the owner in occupation of property No. 1372 which was adjacent to and having a common staircase with the property. Respondent No. 4 filed a suit for recovery of damages against the petitioners, the Corporation and several other persons and authorities; for a mandatory injunction to direct the various defendants to remove construction and alterations in the property alleged to have been made in contravention of the Building Bye-laws and without sanction of the Municipal Authorities; for a mandatory injunction to direct the petitioners to close the guest house that was being run in the property; and for a mandatory injunction to direct the Corporation to demolish the additional construction and alterations made in the property. Petitioners filed an appeal under Section 343 of the Act against the demolition order passed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 made an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, to be added as a respondent. The Tribunal allowed respondent No. 4 to be added as a respondent to the petitioners' appeal.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Tribunal has no inherent power to add a party, except the Corporation and its officers, in an appeal under Section 343 of the Act. 2. The impugned order to add respondent No. 4 as a party to the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 343 of the Act is not in accordance with law.

Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has any inherent power to add a party, except the Corporation and its officers, in an appeal under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957? 2. Whether the impugned order to add respondent No. 4 as a party to the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 343 of the Act is in accordance with law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Statutory Tribunal derives all its powers, jurisdiction and authority from the express provision made in the Statute by and under which it is created. It has no other powers. It cannot exercise any power vested in a Civil Court unless such power is conferred upon the Tribunal by the Statute. 2. The power to add a party under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. The power to add a party under this provision which vests in a Civil Court has not been conferred on the Tribunal. This power is not included in the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (7) of Section 347-C of the Act. 3. The Tribunal has no power to add respondent No. 4 as a party to the appeal. Respondent No. 4 could, if at all, be examined as a witness but she cannot be added as a party to the appeal. The provision made in sub-rule (4) of Rule 14, with regard to the power of the Tribunal to direct the production of any document or the examination of any witness, is of no avail to the respondents. This provision does not show that the Tribunal has the power to add respondent No. 4 as a party to the appeal. 4. Rule 17 has to be restricted to that special purpose and the power of the Tribunal cannot be widened on the basis of Rule 17 to extend the same beyond the scope of the special purposes for which the Tribunal has been created. In the exercise of this power, the Tribunal cannot travel outside the scope of the limited purpose for which it created. This power, has been conferred upon the Tribunal to secure the ends of justice with regard to only such matters as fall within its limited jurisdiction. This rule has to be correlated with, and it cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal. 5. The Tribunal has no power to add anyone except the Corporation and its officers or servants as a party to an appeal under S. 343 of the Act.

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 24th of May 1989 made by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and this petition is allowed with costs. Petitioners' counsel fee Rs. 2,000. 00.