Delhi High Court
Phiroz Adi Vandrevala vs Shanti Kumar Sharma on 31 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: 57(1995)DLT648, (1995)110PLR30
Author: M. Jagannadha Rao
Bench: M.J. Rao, D.K. Jain
JUDGMENT M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.
(1) This is a regular first appeal against the judgment in the suit 1046/94 and Ia 4435/94 dated 13.5.1994. The appellant is the plaintiff and claims to be the tenant of the respondent. The suit is laid for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant (respondent) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the premises (i.e. First floor, Barsati portion) bearing No.36-B, Malcha Marg, New Delhi, and for directing the defendant to allow access to the electric fuse box, electric meters, water pump/motor as well as to the water meters by giving duplicate key of the lock of the door of the rear verandah, access to which is from the service lane, or in the alternative to permit the plaintiff to shift the electric fuse box, water booster pump and the electric and water meters to the first floor portion; for an injunction to defendant not to park his vehicles/cars in front of the stair case leading to the access to the premises of the plaintiff etc. (2) In other words, the plaint not only relates to the continuance of amenities like the electricity and water but the principal relief is that the plaintiff's possession must be protected.
(3) The learned Single Judge referred to Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 which deals with the restoration of essential supplies or services cut off by the landlord and held that if the Rent Controller has power to restore the amenities after they are cut-off, he has also power to prevent the landlord from cutting themoff. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 50(1) of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of certain matters which are within the powers of the Rent Controller, viz. fixation of standard rent and eviction and "any other matter which the controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide". He held that in view of Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred even in regard to restraining the landlord from cutting-off the amenities.The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Admittedly, an eviction case is pending before the Rent Controller). The plaintiff-tenant has preferred this appeal.
(4) It is true that the Civil Court does not, in view of the express provisions of Section 50(1) have jurisdiction in regard to certain matters within the preview of the Rent Controller. But, on the facts of this case and the relief claimed in the plaint, the point covers two aspects. One aspect concerns the relief of permanent injunction for protecting the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The other aspect concerns the relief for restraining the landlord from cutting off electricity and water etc. (5) So far as the second aspect above mentioned is concerned, the question is whether the Civil Court can grant injunction restraining the landlord from cutting off electricity, water etc. and whether such a power can be said to be impliedly vested in the Rent Controller who has power, after disconnection, for restoration of the amenities. We do not think it necessary for us to decide this aspect. In fact,if the learned trial Judge is to be taken to have expressed any opinion in this behalf,we leave the question open for decision in the suit. We are doing so in view of what we propose to say on the first aspect referred to, namely, whether the Civil Court can be approached, even by a statutory tenant, for protection of his peaceful possession.
(6) On the first aspect, we have no doubt that it is open to a statutory tenant to move a Civil Court for grant of permanent injunction to protect his possession. This is well settled law under Section 9 CPC. The Rent Controller has not been conferred with any jurisdiction for passing orders in relation to protecting the peaceful possession of those in possession of immovable property. The plaintiff has claim edspecifically for grant of permanent injunction for protection of his possession. The suit was certainly maintainable in the Civil Court so far as the said relief is concerned and hence the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11CPC.
(7) The learned Single Judge ought not to have rejected the plaint which contains the relief regarding permanent injunction for protecting the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. We, therefore, set aside the order and restore the plaint on the file of this Court for continuation of the suit in accordance with law.This order will not amount to any expression of opinion on the merits of this case or on the merits of the eviction petition now pending in the Court of the Rent Controller. The appeal is allowed as stated above. No costs.