TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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 nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he privacy, light, and air of the Appellant's block have been affected; ii. The first Respondent is alleged to have constructed a stair case to gain access to the terrace, as a consequence of which the Appellant's privacy is stated to be disturbed; iii. The first Respondent has removed a water pipeline, as a result of which the water supply to the property of the Appellant is affected; and iv. The first Respondent has locked the service line for the cleaning of the septic tank. 4. It is contended by the Appellant that she had raised complaints against the illegal construction by the first Respondent to the second Respondent and that she also issued notices to the first and second Respondents for removing the construction. The first and the second Respondents did not respond to the complaints and notices. The Appellant instituted a suit seeking the following reliefs: PRAYER It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a decree in mandatory forms giving directions to both the Defendants to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the Defendant No. 1 on the open site, which is situated towards the east and north ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip in between them, parties to bear their own costs, if any. The map which is produced along with inspection Note Ex. 73 will form the part of the decree. Decree be drawn accordingly. 6. The judgment of the trial court was assailed by the first Respondent Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1999, which was dismissed on 21 November 2003. The District Court affirmed the finding of the trial Judge that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Judge held that the Appellant - who is the Plaintiff in the suit - is affected by the encroachment which has been made by the first Respondent on premises belonging to the Authority. In the view of the District Judge, since the individual rights of the Appellant were affected by the unauthorized construction, the suit was maintainable and was not barred by the provisions of Section 71. It was observed: 20. [...] Due to the construction made by the Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff had lost her right to privacy so also the drainage line and water pipe line to her premises have been damaged and destroyed, which has put her to material loss, We have come to the conclusion that Plaintiff h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or stay shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred or duty imposed by or under this Act. (emphasis supplied) 10. Section 66 forms a part of Chapter VI which is titled Power to evict persons from authority premises and to recover dues . Sub-section (1) of Section 66 empowers the competent authority to order a person who is in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises to be evicted for unauthorized occupation. Section 66(1) is in the following terms: 66. Power to evict certain persons from Authority premises. (1) If the Competent Authority is satisfied-- (a) that the person authorised, to occupy any Authority premises has-- (i) not paid rent or compensation or amount lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of more than two months, or (ii) sub-let, without the previous permission of the Authority, the whole or any part of such premises, or (iii) committed, or is committing any act which is destructive or permanently injurious to such premises, or (iv) made, or is making, material addition to, or alteration in, such premises without the previous permission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission; and (c) Acting in contravention of the terms on which a person is authorized to occupy the premises. Under Clause (b), where a person is in unauthorized occupation of any 'Authority premises', the competent authority may proceed to order the person to be evicted from the premises. 13. The Appellant did not seek the eviction of the first Respondent in the suit. On the contrary, the plaint proceeds on the basis that both the Appellant and the first Respondent are allottees under the second Respondent. The plea against the first Respondent is that she has made an 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. Besides this, it has been submitted that the first Respondent has shifted a water line and caused an obstruction to be made to the drainage line in the premises. 14. 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 v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. The relevant observations are extracted below: 12. The well-settled Rule in this regard is that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those entertainment whereof is expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of civil nature is very expansive. Any statute which excludes such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general Rule that all disputes shall be triable by a civil court. Any such exception cannot be readily inferred by the courts. The court would lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the civil courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted. 13. Even in cases where the statute accords finality to the orders passed by the Tribunals, the court will have to see whether the Tribunal has the power to grant the reliefs which the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. If the answer is in the negative, exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa [ (2009) 4 SCC 299: (2009) 1 SCC (L S) 812] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
