TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a Munsif acting under Section 7-E of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 acts as a Court or as a persona designata, and whether an order passed under that provision is revisable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Analysis: The majority held that Section 7-E created a right in the tenant but entrusted its enforcement to the Munsif in his capacity as the presiding officer of an existing civil court, not as a special tribunal. The provision was read with the scheme of the Act, including the use of the Munsif and Court expressions in related sections, the civil nature of the dispute, the territorial jurisdiction language, and the absence of any indication that the ordinary jurisdiction of civil courts was excluded. The Act's structure, especially the treatment of other functions as administrative and the reference to Munsif-based proceedings alongside ordinary civil court procedure, supported the conclusion that the legislature intended the Munsif to act as a Court. The majority further held that, since the Munsif acted as a Court subordinate to the High Court, an order passed by him under Section 7-E was amenable to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Conclusion: The Munsif acts as a Court and not as a persona designata, and revision is maintainable; the answer is in the affirmative and in favour of the appellant.
Dissenting Opinion: Pathak J. held that the language and scheme of Section 7-E showed the creation of a special jurisdiction in the Munsif as a persona designata, with a special procedure and no ordinary appellate incident, and therefore a revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
