Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP) - Ss. 45 and 39 - allotment made by Authorised Officer under section 39 - civil suit not barred to challenge to such order-injunction may also be issued.
       Section 45 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters relating to fixation of standard rent and other matters which the Rent Controlling Authority is empowered to decide under the Act This section further forbids issuance of any injunction in respect of any action taken by, the Rent Controlling Authority. The Act, however, makes no provision similar to section 45 ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for challenging an order of allotment made by the Authorised Officer or forbidding issuance of an injunction to the Authorised Officer in respect of any allotment made by him. A suit, therefore lies for challenging an order of allotment made by the Authorised Officer at least on the ground that the order is in excess of jurisdiction. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the order is in excess of authority, it can issue an injunction forbidding implementation of the order. [Para 3
       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP) - S. 39 - applicability of - conditions necessary - jurisdictional facts.
       Section 39 of the Act has no application to an accommodation the monthly rent of which does not exceed Rs. 25. Further, even when section 39 applies, no allotment can be made unless the house has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant. All these questions are jurisdictional questions. [Para 7
       (3) Jurisdiction - cannot be assumed by wrongly deciding jurisdictional facts. [Para 7
       (4) Civil P.C., 1908 - O. 39. Rr. 1 and 2 - principles for grant of temporary injunction-prima facie case-what is-balance of convemence - matters to be seen-non-interference with possession-when may be ordered-condition of paying damager.
       Although it is said that a plaintiff must show a prima facie case in support of the right claimed by him in the suit before he can be granted temporary injunction, the real thing to be seen only is that the plaintiff's claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words that there is a serious question to be tried. It is not the function of the Court at this stage to resolve disputed questions of fact or difficult questions of law which should be left to be decided at the conclusion of the trial.
       The extent of disadvantages to each party which cannot be compensated by award of damages in the event of his succeeding in the suit is a very material consideration for determining where the balance of convenience lies If such disadvantages may be of equal strength, the relative strength of each party's case as shown from documents and affidavits may be assessed. It relevant competing factors are equally balanced, prudence may lie in maintaining the status quo. These principles are to be generally observed in the grant of temporary injunctions but there may be special factors of a particular case which may require a different approach. For example in cases where the plaintiff and defendant both claim to be in possession of the suit property, temporary injunction should not be granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff s possession unless the Court finds a very strong probability that the plaintiff is in possession. Further, the grant of injunction in such cases must be on the condition that the plaintiff will pay damages to the defendant in case ultimately he is found to be out of possession. [Para 4
       The principle that generally the plaintiff is not required to make out a clear legal title, but has only to satisfy the Court that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the legal right claimed by him in the suit is well recognised in India. (1975) 1 All ER 504 relied on. [Para 5
       (5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP) - S. 39 - use of the premises as godown-is physical occupation. [Para 8

Judgement Key Points

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 directed to find out prima facie whether the plaintiff is in actual occupation of the suit house. After remand, the District Judge by his order, dated 19th April 1977, dismissed the appeal. In paragraph 45 of the order, the District Judge found that before the order of allotment was passed, one Jagdish Prasad with his family used to reside in the house in suit and the plaintiff did not live in the house and that after jagdish Prasad left the house, the plaintiff started using it as a godown for storing tobacco. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision.

( 2. ) THE order of allotment passed by the Authorised Officer proceeds on the finding that the house in suit was in occupation of Jagdish Prasad as tenant on a rent of Rs. 40 per month and that the house fell vacant when Jagdish prasad vacated it on 4th April 1975. This order is challenged in the suit by the plaintiff on the allegations that Jagdish Prasad was not a tenant and was living with the plaintiff in the house being a relation, that the house never fell vacant and that the monthly rent of the house did not exceed Rs. 25. Sub-section (2) of section 39 empowers the Authorised Officer to make an order of allotment in respect of an accommodation "which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant". Section 39, as provided in sub-section (5) of that section, has no application to any accommodation used for residential purposes the monthly rent of which does not exceed Rs. 25. The plaintiff first contends that the authorised Officer assumed jurisdiction under section 39 by wrongly finding on wholly inadmissible evidence that the rent of the house was Rs. 40 per month The second contention of the plaintiff is that Jagdish Prasad was living in the house with the plaintiff as his licensee and, therefore, the house did not fall vacant when Jagdish Prasad ceased to live in the house because the plaintiff continues in occupation of the house. The plaintiffs argument is that by holding wrongly that the house was in occupation of Jagdish Prasad as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40, the Authorised Officer assumed jurisdiction which he did not possess.

( 3. ) IT is conceded before me that a civil suit to challenge an order of allotment passed by the Authorised Officer on the ground that it is in excess of jurisdiction is not barred. Section 45 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court in matters relating to fixation of standard rent and other matters which the Rent Controlling Authority is empowered to decide under the Act. This section further forbids issuance of any injunction in respect of any action taken by the Rent Controlling Authority. The Act, however, makes no provision similar to section 45 ousting the jurisdiction of the civil Court fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1977 Supreme(MP) 86

High Court Of Madhya PradeshG. P. Singh, J.SHANKARLAL DEBIPRASAD RATHOREVersusSTATE OF M PDecided On : Aug 10,1977