SHANKARLAL DEBIPRASAD RATHORE vs STATE OF M P

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(MP) 86

G.P.SINGH
SHANKARLAL DEBIPRASAD RATHORE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M P – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
FAKHRUDDIN, J.P.SANGHI, M.V.TAMSKAR, S.C.JAIN,

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the jurisdictional limit of Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 when rent is not exceeding Rs. 25 per month? Question 2? What are the criteria for granting temporary injunction in a case challenging an allotment under the Act, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and adequacy of damages? Question 3? Can a civil suit challenge an allotment order made by an Authorised Officer for alleged excess of jurisdiction, and can injunction be issued to restrain implementation of such an order?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the jurisdictional limit of Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 when rent is not exceeding Rs. 25 per month?

Question 2?

What are the criteria for granting temporary injunction in a case challenging an allotment under the Act, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and adequacy of damages?

Question 3?

Can a civil suit challenge an allotment order made by an Authorised Officer for alleged excess of jurisdiction, and can injunction be issued to restrain implementation of such an order?

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) BY order, dated 9th July 1975, passed under section 39 of the madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the Authorised Officer allotted House No. 572, Sarafa Ward, Jabalpur, in favour of one Ikram Hussain who is employed as a welder in the Vehicle Factory, a Government of India undertaking. Shankarlal Rathore instituted the suit, in which this revision arises, on 10th July 1975 for a declaration that the order of allotment is without jurisdiction. Relief of permanent injunction is also claimed in the suit. The State, the Authorised Officer and Ikram Hussain are joined in the suit as defendants 1, 2 and 3. An application for temporary injunction was made by the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the application. On appeal, the District judge, Jabalpur, issued a temporary injunction restraining Ikram Hussain from taking possession of the house and also restraining the Authorised Officer from enforcing the order of allotment. Ikram Hussain filed a revision being Civil revision No. 719 of 1976. This revision was allowed on 22nd March 1977 by honble the Chief Justice and the appeal was remanded to the District Judge for fresh disposal. The District Judge was dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document