PRAKASH KUMAR Vs. KANAHIYA LAL AGRAWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 12 -A/2014, passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sakti, whereby the order dated 15.05.2014, passed in Civil Suit No. 1 -A/2014, by the Court of Civil Judge Class -II, Sakti, was reversed and the case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for adjudication on merits.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for adjudication of this case are that one Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, Anil Kumar Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Agrawal filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge Class -I, Sakti against Prakash Kumar for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs were the tenant and the Prakash Kumar being the landlord was arrayed as a defendant No. 1 and the Officer -in -charge C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd., was arrayed as defendant No. 2. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are the tenants were carrying on the business in the name and style of Vijay Book Depot and General Stores in the schedule suit property. The said suit premises was obtained on rent 40 years back. It was stated that on 22.01.2013, at the instance of owner, Prakash Kumar, the defendant No. 2, C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd., disconnected the electricity line and took away the meter, whereby the electricity connection to the premises of the tenant stopped. It was stated that when the matter was enquired, it was orally stated that since the road was to be widened and therefore, some part of the premises were being demolished. After such incident, 5 -6 months passed but electricity connection was not restored as such civil suit was filed on 03.01.2014 and it was prayed that the removal of meter on 22.01.2013 be declared bad and illegal and direction was sought to restore electricity connection to the suit premises. In the said civil suit, the pleading was also made to the effect that at the time of filing, an application was preferred U/s. 38 of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961") but nothing transpired as such, the civil suit was preferred.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Court by its order dated 15.05.2014 allowed the application moved by the defendant/landlord under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and held that admittedly the relation of landlord and tenant exists and has held that the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2011") has come to an existence on 06.11.2012, which repealed the earlier Act i.e. the Act of 1961. The Trial Court, therefore held that with the coming of the new Act, the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction since the entire dispute has to be decided by the Tribunal and on that ground dismissed the suit.