Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1500 - SC - Indian LawsIllegal 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.
|