Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.9 – Bar of jurisdiction of civil court – Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA) – ss.71, 177 and 66(1)(a)(iv) – Appellant claimed to be in possession of the residential tenement – The first respondent is stated to be in occupation of a ground floor tenement in the same building – Appellant alleged that the first respondent has made illegal and unauthorized construction in open vacant site situated in the side of the block which has affected her easements including privacy, light, air, water supply – Appellant instituted regular civil suit seeking removal of illegal construction, grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining first respondent-defendant from making any construction over the open site and restoration of water connection – First respondent filed written statement contending that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit under s.71 r/w s.177 of the MHADA – Civil Judge dismissed the challenge to the jurisdiction and decreed the suit – District Court affirmed the finding of the civil judge – High Court, however, allowed the second appeal filed by the respondent and held that the suit was barred in terms of the provisions of sections 71 and 177 of the MHADA – Held: The objective of the bodies and authorities constituted under the MHADA is to ensure repairing and reconstructing buildings to provide housing – The competent authority under the Act (MHADA) has jurisdiction to order the eviction in terms of the provisions of s.66 but that was not the relief claimed by the plaintiff-appellant in the suit – Thus, the reliefs claimed by the appellant were beyond the scope of the Act – Suit of the nature filed by the appellant would be maintainable before the civil court and would not be barred by s.71 or s.177 of the MHADA. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 71 of the Act provides for the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. In terms of the provision, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings (i) “in respect of the eviction of any person from any Authority premises under this Chapter”; or (ii) for the recovery of the arrears of rent, compensation or damages for the use and occupation of such premises; or (iii) in respect of any order made or to be made or any action taken or to be taken by the competent authority in exercise of the power conferred by or under the Chapter; or (iv) to grant an injunction in respect of such order or action. Section
177 bars the jurisdiction of a civil court in respect of any matter which the Authority or Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act, to determine. Similarly, no injunction or stay can be granted by a Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of the power conferred or duty imposed by or under the Act. [Para 11][134-C-E]
2. Section 66(1)(b) of MHAD Act entrusts the competent authority with a power to order eviction on the grounds which are set out in the provision. 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. [Para 12][134-F, H]
3. Under Section 9 of CPC, 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. 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 reliefs sought by the appellant in the plaint are: (i) the removal of the unauthorized construction; (ii) a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing over the open site and causing ‘nuisance’; and (iii) restoration of the water connection as it was prior to the construction. 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. [Paras 14 and 16][135-C; 137-C-F]
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC
78 : [1968] 3 SCR 662 – followed.
Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza (2010) 8 SCC 726 : [2010] 10 SCR 945 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.