CHATUR MOHAN Vs. RAM BEHARI DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a larger Bench by Srivastava and Katju JJ., on account of a conflict between S G. Banerji v. Ram Kumar Das, Civil Revn. No 992 of 1958 decided by Mukherji and Uniyal, JJ. on 6-4-1962 (All) and Daulat Ram v. Tirloki Ram. Second Appeal No. 1889 of 1955 decided by Beg and Srivastava, JJ., on 18-8-1961 (All) on the question whether a Munsif exercising jurisdiction conferred upon him by Section 7-E of the U. P (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act acts as a Civil court or as a persona designata.

(2.) The Act confers Jurisdiction in respect of several matters upon District Magistrates, i.e. District Magistrates within the meaning of the Cr. P. C. and other officers empowered by them to perform any of their functions under the Act vide Sections 3-A, 7 and 7-A When a landlord or a tenant claims that the annual reasonable rent of any accommodation is inadequate or excessive he can institute a suit for declaration or for fixation of rent "in the court of the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction, if the annual cent claimed or payable is Rs 500/- on less, and in the court of the Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction if it exceeds Rs 500/-" vide Section 5(4). It has never been questioned that this provision does not confer a new jurisdiction upon the court of a Munsif or of a Civil Judge and simply provides for a new relief to be granted to a landlord or a tenant by the courts in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction viz. the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (No XII of 1887) and the Oudh Courts Act by which they are created. Section 7-B(1) is to the effect that when any tenant is in arrears of rent For more than three months "the landlord may make an appplication to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction for an order of ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation". Then follow provisions which deal with con tents of the application, its verification, the procedure to be followed by the Munsif and the orders that can be passed by him Section 7-E, Sub-section (4), lays down that If a landlord neglects to carry out repairs which he is bound to make, "the tenant may apply to the Munsif having jurisdiction for an order to the landlord for carrying out the same"; there are provisions laying down the procedure to be followed by the Munsif and the orders that may be passed by him and Subsection (8) to the effect that "no appeal shall be from the order of the Munsif passed under Subsections (5) and (6) which shall be final." Section 7-F confers powers upon the State Government to call for the record of any of certain enumerated cases other than a case under Section 7-E and make such orders as appears to it necessary for the ends of justice. The only other provision in the Act that may be noticed is that of Section 16 laying down that no order made under the Act by the State Government or the District Magistrate shall be "called In question in any court".

(3.) The short facts in this case are that the opposite-party tenant made an application under Section 7-E in the court of a Munsif for an order requiring the applicant-landlord to carry out certain repairs to the accommodation. The applicant filed an application in this Court for revision of the Munsifs order under Section 115, C. P. C. Under this provision this Court would have jurisdiction to revise an order of a court subordinate to it and hence arose the question whether the Munsif when exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E acted as a court subordinate to this Court. The court of Munsif was created under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act to exercise jurisdiction over all original suits for the time being cognizable by the civil courts of which the value does not exceed Rs. 2000/-, vide Sections 3 and 19. Under Section 21 an appeal lies from a decree or order of a Munsif to the District Judge. It is undisputedly a court subordinate to the High Court and consequently any order that it passes in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 19 is revisable by the High Court. The question, therefore, before us is whether when the Munsif in the instant case passed the order under Section 7-E he did so in exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act or in exercise of a new and distinct jurisdiction which might have been conferred by the legislature upon any authority and was accidentally conferred upon a person already vested with jurisdiction under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. The ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif extends bo original suits for the time being cognizable by civil courts. Under Section 9 C. P. C. civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Whether a tenant has a right or not to require the landlord to carry out certain repairs to the accommodation is a civil dispute. The relations between a landlord and tenant are governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the Contract Act and any enforcement of a right or a liability accruing under them would be through a civil court. Under them a tenant has no right to call upon the landlord to make the accommodation windproof and waterproof and to carry out repairs which the landlord did not undertake (o carry out; consequently he would have no right to go to a civil court for an order of this nature. Such a right has, however, been conferred upon him by Section 7-E of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. This provision not only created right in the tenant but also provided that the right would be enforced by "the Munsif having jurisdiction". The question is what did the legislature intend by this provision. Did it intend that the Munsif, e.g. the presiding officer of a court of Munsif, should pass such an order in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction or that a special jurisdiction was conferred upon him to pass it? I am of the opinion that the Intention was that he should pass it as a part of his ordinary jurisdiction. The legislature had no reason to distinguish this jurisdiction from the ordinary jurisdiction over suits of a civil nature, The dispute was essentially a dispute of a civil nature. But for Section 7-E the tenant would not have a right to obtain such an order and the legislature intended only to create the right. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that it intended to oust me ordinary jurisdiction of civil courts over the right or to create a special authority for enforcing it. This intention is not Inconsistent with its specifying a Munsif's Court as the court competent to grant the relief; otherwise a Munsif or a Civil Judge would have been competent to grant it depending upon the valuation placed upon it by the tenant. Apparently the Legislature intended not that the jurisdiction should depend upon the valuation to be placed upon the relief by the tenant but that a munsif should have jurisdiction In all cases and, consequently, provided in Section 7-E that the tenant may apply to a Munsif. The words "having jurisdiction" used in Sub-section (4) certainly mean territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction depends upon the provisions of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act or the Oudh Courts Act and the reference to this jurisdiction does lend some support to the argument that the Munsif is to act as a court governed by the Act and not as a persona designata specially constituted under Section 7-E.