1990 (3) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court.
3. Validity of the lease transaction.
4. Possession and eviction rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The primary issue is whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit and obtain a decree restraining the defendants from evicting her from the building otherwise than in accordance with the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The court's decision hinges on the maintainability of the suit.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The court examined whether the civil court has jurisdiction over the dispute. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred. However, when a statute vests exclusive power in another tribunal, the civil court cannot interfere. The court noted that the jurisdiction of the civil court may be excluded expressly or by clear implication. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions to underline this principle.

3. Validity of the Lease Transaction:
The court scrutinized the lease transaction between the defaulter and the petitioner. Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act voids private alienations, including leases, made after the service of notice under rule 2 without the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer. The court emphasized that obtaining permission is a condition precedent for creating a valid lease. The lease to the petitioner was made during the subsistence of the attachment and without such permission, rendering it void.

4. Possession and Eviction Rights:
The court analyzed the possession and eviction rights under the relevant rules. Rule 39 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules allows the Tax Recovery Officer to order delivery of the property to the purchaser and remove any person who refuses to vacate. The court found that the third respondent had taken possession of the property without resistance from the petitioner. The court inferred that the first respondent had put the third respondent in possession of the property in exercise of his powers under rule 39(1).

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the civil court has limited jurisdiction to examine whether the Tax Recovery Officer acted in accordance with the law and the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Given the statutory framework, the suit was deemed not maintainable. The court dismissed the C.R.P., noting that any proceedings initiated by the petitioner under rule 44 or 47 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules or rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule would have to be considered uninfluenced by the court's findings in this order.