MUNNI DEVI & ANR. versus GOKAL CHAND & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 12-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
-
363 
MUNNI DEVI & ANR. 
v. 
GOKAL CHAND & ORS. 
September 12, 1969 
R 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Jurisdictional Fact-Power to allot premises 
on 
the 
existence 
of 
vacancy-Statute enacting orders passed un•der the statute shall not be 
called in question in any court-District Magistrate deciding 
premises 
vacant-If final-Court exclusion of Jurisdiction of -U.P. (Tem-
porury) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 7, 7A, 16. 
By s. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and_Eviction 
Act, 1947, "the District Magistrate may require a landlord to Jet or not 
to let to any ·person any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant" 
and s. 16 of the Act provides that "no order made under this Act by 
the State Government or the Dislrict Magistrate shall be called in question 
in any court." 
The first appellant appEed for an order in ejectrnent of the first res-
,pondent on the plea that he had committed default in 
paying rent. 
The District Magistrate held that the respondent was not in occupation of 
the shop, declared the shop vacant and allotted it to another person. 
The respondent brought an action in the civil court for- a ded.aration 
that he was an allottee of the shop and was in possession in that capacity. 
The trial court held that the appellant . neve'r vacated the shop, nor was 
his tenancy terminated, and was therefore entitled to remain in occupa-
tion of the same.. 
An appeal to the District Court and a second appeal 
.to the High -C9urt were unsuccessful. 
In appeal to this Court, the 
appellants contended that the suit filed by the respondent was not main-
tainable, for the Act set up a complete machinery for determining after 
enquiry whether any premises governed by the Act had fallen vacant, 
and that by exoress enactmeµt in s. 16,. the order of the District Magistrate 
was decl3:red final. 
Rejectirig the contention. 
HELD : The Legislature while investing the District Magist!rate with 
power to allot the pr~inises to ·another person on the existence of 
a 
vacancy has not made· his determination of the preliminary state of facts 
conclusive. 
There is nothing in s. 7 or s. 7 A which confers jurisdiction 
upon the District Magistrate to conclusively determine the facts 
on the 
existence of which his iurisdiction arises. Whether there is a vacancy is a 
jurisdictional fact which could not be decided by him finally. By reaching 
an erroneous decision, he cannot clothe himself. with jurisdiction which 
he does not possess. 
It is only when the order is with jurisdiction that 
the order is not liable to he challenged in a civil court by virtue of s. 16 
of the Act. [36S H-369 CJ 
Reg v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 21 Q.B.D. 313, and Ebrahim 
Aboobakar & Anr. v. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, [1952) 
S.C.R. 696, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 899 of 
1966. 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
.A 
May 14, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 4136 o.f 1964. 
Y ogeshwar Prasad and Hardev Singh, for the appe!lants. 
S. N. Anand, for the respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
Gokal Chand-first respondent in this appeal-. 
was a tenant of shop No. 34/2, Dispensary Road, Debra Dun, 
which belongs to Munni Devi-the first appellant in this appeal. 
Munni Devi applied to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. J)ehra c 
Dun, for an order in ejectment on the plea that Gokal Chand had 
committed defa~lt in paying rent. 
T~e RC. & E. Officer passed 
an order observmg that the tenant did not lead any evidence to 
show that he had not vacated the shop and it was clear on the 
evidence that the tenant was not in occupation of the shop and 
had let it out to one Alladia. He accordingly declared that the 
shop was vacant. 
D 
The RC. & E. Officer allotted the shop to Kishori!al. Kishori-
lal then applied to the R.C. & E. Officer that the shop allotted to 
him was in the illegal occupation of Rawe! Chand s/ o Gokal 
Chand. On May 22, 1957, the RC. & E. Officer declared that 
Gokal Chand the preyious tenant had vacated the shop and that 
E 
Rawe! Chand was in illegal occupation of the shop. He accord-
ingly issued a notice under s. 7 A (3) of the Act. 
Gokal Chand then filed a civil suit in the Court of the Munsif, 
Debra Dun, for a declaration that he was an allottee and a tenant 
of the shop and that he was in

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