Civil Suit Claiming Reliefs Beyond Scope Of The Act Which Bars Its Jurisdiction Is Maintainable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a civil suit claiming reliefs beyond the scope of the Act which bars its jurisdiction will be maintainable.

Even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.

In this case, the Bombay High Court held that a suit is barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976. The reliefs sought 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.

In terms of Section 71, 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 8 conferred or duty imposed by or under the Act.

The appellant was represented by Adv. Somiran Sharma. In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that, 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. Referring to Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza (2010) 8 SCC 726, the bench observed:

"In Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza , a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed that the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of a civil nature is expansive and the onus to prove the ouster of the jurisdiction is on the party that asserts it. The court observed that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them"

The bench noted that the Maharashtra Act is intended 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 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."

Observing thus, the court allowed the appeal.

Case details

Sau Rajani vs Sau Smita | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702 | CA 5216 of 2022 | 8 August 2022 | Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 9 - Law on ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts - The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of a civil nature is expansive and the onus to prove the ouster of the jurisdiction is on the party that asserts it. The court observed that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them - Referred to Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78 and Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza (2010) 8 SCC 726. (Para 15)

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 ; Sections 71, 177 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 9 - The reliefs sought 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 reliefs claimed 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. (Para 16)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment