LALA RAM SWARUP AND OTHERS versus SHIKAR CHAND AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 10-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' 
• 
• 
A 
LALA RAM SWARUP AND OTIIERS 
v . 
SHIKAR CHAND AND ANOTHER 
November 10, 1965 
553 
B [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA-
TULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 ( U.P. 3 
of 1~47), ss. 3(3), 3(4) and !~Jurisdiction of Civil Court~It barred-
Revisionary powers of Commissioners-Scope. 
The appellants sued the respondents-their tenants for ejectment from 
their shop. They had applied to the District Magistrate for the requisite 
permission to institute the suit under s. 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act. When the permission was refused they 
moved the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction under s. 3(2) of the 
Act and the Commissfoner gave the permission. The Munsif decreed the 
suit. This was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge. The High Court, 
on appeals, upheld the respondents' contention that the permission granted 
by the Commissioner under s. 3 (3) of the Act, was invalid in law, and 
so concluded that the appellants' suit was incompetent. 
In this Court 
the appellants contended: 
(i) ss. 3(4) and 16 of the Act totally excludes 
the jurisdiction of civil courts in relation to the question as to whether 
permission has been properly or validly granted or refused by the appro-
priate authority exercising their powers under the relevant provisions of 
the Act, and (ii) the decision of the High Court that the permission granted 
by the Commissioner was invalid in law was inconsistent with the true 
scope and effect of the provisions prescribed by s. 3 ( 3) of the Act. 
HELD: (i) Section 3(4) and 16 of the Act create a bar against pleas 
which challenge the correctness or propriety of the orders in question. [558 
G] 
The two tests, which are often considered relevant in dealing with the 
question about the exclusion of chi! courts' jurisdiction are (a) whether the 
special statute which excludes such jurisdiction has used clear and unambi-
guous words indicating that intention; and (b) does that statute provide 
for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party that may be 
aggrieved by the relevant order under its material provisions. Applying 
these tests the inference is inescapable that the jurisdiction of the civil courts 
is intended to be excluded. [558 D-G] 
This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the plea 
against the validity of order passed by the District Magistrate, or the 
Commissioner, or the State can never be raised in a civil court. The bar 
excluding the jurisdiction of ch.ii courts cannot operate in cases where 
the plea raised before the civil court goes to the root of the matter and 
would, if upheld, lead to the conclusion that. the impugned order h a 
nullity. [558 G-H] 
(ii) The High Court was not justified, in introducing a limitation per-
taining to questions of jurisdiction in determining the scope of the width 
of the revisional power conferred on the Commissioner by s. 3(3). 
There are three categories of cases in which the Commissioner can interfere 
with the order passed by the District Magistrate: (a) if the District Magis-
trate has acted illegally; (b) if be bas acted with material irregularity and 
( c) if he has wrongly refused to act. 
This !Mt ground is wide enough 
554 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
to empower the Commissioner to correct the error committed by District 
A 
Magistrate in making an order brought before it; clearly if the District 
Magistrate refused to grant permission and the Com.mi3sioner thinks that in 
doing so, he bas committed an error, that would be a case where the 
District Magistrate "has wrongly refused to act" and that would give the 
Commissioner jurisdiction to exercise his revisional powers. 
[562 C-E, 
HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN: Civil Appeal No. 116 of 
B: 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 
13, 
1960, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 212 of 
1956. 
J. P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the appellants. 
A. V. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the res-
pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. Appellant No. l, Lala Ram Swaruup, and 
five other members of his family sued the two respondents, Shikar 
Chand and his son, for ejectment from the shop situated in Qasba 
Chandausi, Bazar Waram, on the allegation that the said premises 
had been let out to the respondents to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.