1964 (10) TMI 88 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Validity of the clearance order.
3. Allegations of mala fides and fraud.
4. Amendment of the plaint.
5. Violation of constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The core issue was whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, was maintainable. The plaintiffs, tenants of the Dhobi Chawls, filed the suit in a representative capacity against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the landlords. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of non-tenability, and this decision was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and held that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable, affirming that the plaintiffs should have preferred an appeal before a Judge of the City Civil Court as provided under Schedule GG of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

2. Validity of the Clearance Order:
The plaintiffs contended that the provisions of Sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were ultra vires of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether these provisions imposed reasonable restrictions on the tenants' rights to hold property. The Court concluded that the provisions were valid and did not violate the constitutional rights of the tenants. The Court emphasized that tenants had the right to lodge objections to the clearance order and that the restrictions were reasonable in the interests of the general public.

3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Fraud:
The plaintiffs alleged that the landlords and the Municipal Corporation acted mala fide and fraudulently induced the clearance order. The High Court allowed the amendment of the plaint to include these allegations and remitted the case to the City Civil Court for further evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no basis for the allegations of fraud in the original plaint and that the High Court erred in allowing the amendment and remitting the case for a virtual retrial. The Court noted that the mere use of the term "mala fide" in the plaint did not justify the amendment.

4. Amendment of the Plaint:
The High Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to include allegations of fraud and mala fides. The Supreme Court held that this amendment should not have been allowed as it introduced an entirely new case without any basis in the original plaint. The Court emphasized that amendments should not be permitted to make out a new case unless there are compelling reasons, which were absent in this instance.

5. Violation of Constitutional Rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g):
The plaintiffs argued that Sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act violated their rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) by conferring uncontrolled executive discretion on the Corporation. The Supreme Court examined the provisions and concluded that they imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. The Court held that the tenants had the opportunity to lodge objections and appeal against the clearance order, thus ensuring that their rights were not unreasonably restricted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable and that the provisions of Sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were valid and did not violate the constitutional rights of the tenants. The Court emphasized that the tenants had the right to lodge objections and appeal against the clearance order, ensuring that their rights were protected. The appeal was allowed, but no order as to costs was made.