2022 (8) TMI 1500 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal construction by the first Respondent to the second Respondent - unauthorized construction of rooms on a vacant site as a result of which the access to light and air and the right to privacy of the Appellant have been affected - civil court have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the provisions Section 71 read with Section 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976 or not - HELD THAT - Under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure the civil court has the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those in respect of which the jurisdiction is barred either expressly or impliedly by a specific provision of law. In DHULABHAI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER 1968 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT a Constitution Bench laid down the law on ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts. Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah writing for the Bench laid down the principles on bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts and held that An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply. The preamble to the Act states that it is an Act to unify consolidate and amend the laws relating to housing repairing and reconstructing dangerous buildings and carrying out improvement works in slum areas . The scheme of the statute provides that the Board constituted under the statute would have the power to repair and reconstruct dilapidated buildings conduct structural repairs and evict persons from authority premises among others. The objective of the bodies and authorities constituted under the Act is to ensure repairing and reconstructing buildings to provide housing. Undoubtedly the competent authority has the jurisdiction to order eviction in terms of the provisions of Section 66. But that is not the frame of the suit or the relief which has been claimed by the Appellant in the suit - The Appellant instituted the suit for injunction because her easements were infringed by the illegal construction which the first Respondent had erected on the open space. The reliefs claimed by the Appellant are beyond the scope of the Act. A suit of this nature will be maintainable before the civil court and would not be barred by Section 71 or Section 177 of the Act. The Single Judge of the High Court was in error in upholding the plea that there was a bar of jurisdiction and reversing the findings of the trial Judge and the first appellate court. Since however the Single Judge of the High Court has only ruled on the absence of jurisdiction a view which has been disapproved above the second appeal is restored to the file of the High Court for consideration on merits - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
2. Unauthorized construction by the first Respondent and its impact on the Appellant's rights.
3. Restoration of water connection and removal of obstructions caused by the first Respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976:
The Single Judge of the High Court held that the suit was barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 ("the Act"). Section 71 bars civil courts from entertaining suits related to eviction from Authority premises or actions taken by the Competent Authority under the Act. Section 177 similarly bars civil courts from matters the Authority or Tribunal is empowered to determine under the Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Appellant did not seek eviction but rather the removal of unauthorized construction and restoration of water connections. The reliefs sought were beyond the scope of the Act, thus the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred.

2. Unauthorized construction by the first Respondent and its impact on the Appellant's rights:
The trial court found that the first Respondent made unauthorized constructions affecting the Appellant's easements, including privacy, light, air, and water supply. The District Judge affirmed this, noting that the Appellant's individual rights were infringed, making the suit maintainable. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Appellant's suit was based on the disturbance caused by unauthorized construction and not on eviction, thus falling within the civil court's jurisdiction.

3. Restoration of water connection and removal of obstructions caused by the first Respondent:
The trial court directed the Defendants to remove the unauthorized construction and restore the water connection to the Appellant's house. The District Judge upheld this, recognizing the Appellant's right to seek relief for the infringement of her easements. The Supreme Court supported this view, emphasizing that the reliefs sought were related to the Appellant's civil rights and were not covered by the bar of jurisdiction under the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Single Judge of the High Court erred in holding that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred. The reliefs sought by the Appellant were beyond the scope of the Act, and thus the civil court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the second appeal to the High Court for consideration on merits. The High Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the appeal.

Order:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the second appeal was restored to the High Court for disposal on merits within three months. Pending applications were disposed of.