DHANRAJ SITARAMJI GHATBANDE Vs. CHUNNIBHAI CHAGANLAL MANSATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question which is raised for consideration in this revision by the revision applicant is whether the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to direct him to grant his consent and further to direct the Nagpur Corporation authorities to restore the water supply of the non-applicant/tenant.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises. He filed the suit for ejectment for certain water charges and for damages against the defendant who occupied the suit premises as his tenant. During the pendency of the suit before the Court of Small Causes the water connection of the defendant was disconnected by the Corporation for non-payment of water charges. He filed an application Exh. 24 in the Court of the Small Causes to direct the plaintiff/landlord to give his consent and to direct the Corporation authorities to restore the water supply to the defendant at his cost even though the plaintiff might not have granted his consent. The plaintiff opposed the said application of the defendant/tenant on the ground that the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to give any such directions to him. The learned Court of Small Causes, however, held that it has power to pass such an order under S.151 of the Civil P.C. (for short "CPC") He, therefore, directed the plaintiff to give his consent. He further directed that if the plaintiff does not give his consent still without waiting for his consent the Nagpur Corporation authorities should restore the water supply to the defendant/tenant at his costs on the basis of his order. He also directed that the plaintiff/landlord should not obstruct in the process otherwise than by due course of law. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/landlord has preferred the instant revision in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged before me that the nature of relief claimed by the defendant/tenant was in the nature of a mandatory injunction as well as a prohibitory order also. According to him a suit to obtain injunction was barred from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by virtue of item 17 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. His submission, therefore, is that if no suit to obtain injunction could lie in the Court of Small Causes the said Court could not exercise any power under S.151 of the CPC to pass any orders in the nature of an injunction. The learned counsel for the defendant/tenant has however supported the impugned order under the inherent powers of the Court under S.151 of the CPC for which reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527.