9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Collector dated 30th April 1947 and the order of the Commissioner in appeal dated 26th August 1947 are ultra vires. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. Issue 1: Ultra Vires Orders The plaintiff challenged the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, arguing that these orders were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that the term "occupation" in Section 11(3) of the Act should be interpreted as "residence," thereby limiting the landlord's right to evict tenants only for residential purposes. The Court examined the statutory language and definitions within the Act, particularly focusing on the term "occupation." The Court noted that the Act's scope includes both residential and non-residential buildings, as defined in Section 2 of the Act. The Court concluded that "occupation" should be understood in its ordinary dictionary sense, meaning the actual use of the property for its intended purpose, which in this case was running a cinema house. Therefore, the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner were not ultra vires as they were within the jurisdiction conferred by the Act. Issue 2: Permanent Injunction The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. The Court found that the plaintiff's argument hinged on a narrow interpretation of "occupation" as "residence." However, since the Court determined that "occupation" includes non-residential use, such as running a cinema house, the plaintiff's basis for seeking an injunction was unfounded. The Court also addressed additional contentions raised by the plaintiff, including the procedural validity of the application before the Controller and the scope of the eviction order. The Court ruled that these arguments were either procedurally barred or lacked substantive merit. Consequently, the Court denied the request for a permanent injunction. Conclusion The Court dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were not ultra vires and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a permanent injunction. The Court emphasized that the term "occupation" in the relevant statutory provision should be interpreted broadly to include both residential and non-residential uses, thereby validating the eviction orders for the purpose of running a cinema house. Separate Judgment by M. Prasad, J. M. Prasad, J. concurred with the judgment, emphasizing that the word "occupation" must be construed in the context of the Act, which applies to both residential and non-residential buildings. He highlighted that the landlords' requirement to run a cinema show themselves falls within the meaning of "occupation" under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, the landlords' actions were in compliance with the statutory provisions, and the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed.
|
