9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court to maintain suit challenging Mamlatdar's order as 'ultra vires'.
In this case, the petitioner, a tenant, challenged an order made by the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy Act as 'ultra vires'. The petitioner alleged that a new tenancy agreement was entered into with the landlords after the initial possession order. The Mamlatdar ordered possession to be given to the landlords, but subsequently, another order favored the petitioner's possession claim. The landlords then filed a suit in the Civil Court, arguing the Mamlatdar's order was invalid. The key issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the Mamlatdar's order. The petitioner contended that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to review the Mamlatdar's order if it was 'ultra vires'. The Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted only for valid orders made by the Mamlatdar under the Act. If the Mamlatdar's order is not for the Act's purposes or is 'ultra vires', it can be challenged in the Civil Court. The Court clarified that it does not assess the suit's merits but determines if the relief sought falls within its jurisdiction. The Court can decide if the Mamlatdar's order is 'ultra vires' without contravening the Act's provisions. Additionally, the Court discussed the effect of Section 74 of the Act, which provides for an appeal against the Mamlatdar's order. The opponents could have appealed to the Collector but chose to file a suit in the Civil Court instead. The Court emphasized that a party is not obligated to appeal an 'ultra vires' order and can seek relief in a Civil Court. The Court cited a Full Bench decision supporting this principle. Thus, the Court upheld the Civil Court's jurisdiction to hear the suit challenging the Mamlatdar's order. However, the Court cautioned against granting injunctions lightly in such matters. It highlighted the Tenancy Act's machinery for possession disputes and advised against unnecessary interference by Civil Courts. The Court directed the lower Court to promptly decide the suit on its merits. The Court also noted the possibility of an appeal to the District Court and advised the petitioner on further legal steps. Ultimately, the Court ordered the case to return to the lower Court for expeditious resolution.
|
