9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of civil courts regarding the validity of the Commissioner's permission. 2. Validity of the permission granted by the Commissioner under Section 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: The appellants contended that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to question the validity of the permission granted by the Commissioner under Section 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 ("the Act"). Section 3(4) of the Act states that the order of the Commissioner shall be final, subject to any order by the State Government under Section 7-F. Section 16 further provides that no order made under the Act by the State Government or the District Magistrate shall be called into question in any court. The combined effect of these provisions, according to the appellants, is to exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters concerning the correctness, propriety, or legality of the Commissioner's order. The court acknowledged that the jurisdiction of civil courts could be excluded by special statutes, but such exclusion must be either expressly provided for or necessarily implied. The court emphasized that the exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction must be clear and unambiguous. The court concluded that Sections 3(4) and 16 of the Act do exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding the merits of the orders passed by the appropriate authorities under the Act. However, the court clarified that this exclusion does not extend to cases where the impugned order is a nullity. For instance, if an order is passed by someone who is not a District Magistrate in law or if the order is passed without complying with mandatory provisions or principles of natural justice, such an order would be a nullity. In such cases, the validity of the order can be challenged in a civil court. 2. Validity of the Permission Granted by the Commissioner: The respondents argued that the permission granted by the Commissioner was invalid, and the High Court upheld this contention. The High Court's majority decision equated the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 3(3) of the Act to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is limited to questions of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. It noted that Section 3(3) does not refer to jurisdictional considerations and allows the Commissioner to interfere with the District Magistrate's order if it is illegal, materially irregular, or if the District Magistrate has wrongly refused to act. The court emphasized that the scope of the Commissioner's revisional power is broader than merely addressing jurisdictional issues. The court also pointed out that the subsequent amendment to Section 3(3) by Act 17 of 1954 clarified that the Commissioner could alter or reverse the District Magistrate's order if it was incorrect, illegal, or improper. This amendment reinforced the court's interpretation that the Commissioner's powers were not limited to jurisdictional errors even before the amendment. The court concluded that the High Court erred in limiting the Commissioner's powers and declared that the permission granted by the Commissioner was valid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the District Court's order was restored with costs throughout. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that while the jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded regarding the merits of orders passed under the Act, this exclusion does not apply to orders that are nullities. The court also held that the Commissioner's powers under Section 3(3) are broader than merely addressing jurisdictional issues, and the permission granted by the Commissioner in this case was valid. The appeal was allowed, and the District Court's order was restored.
|
