Munsif under U.P. Rent Act is Civil Court; High Court can revise orders

Chatur Mohan and Ors. Versus Ram Behari Dixit

Chatur Mohan and Ors. Versus Ram Behari Dixit - AIR 1964 All 562 Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata.
2. Whether an order passed by a Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata:

The case was referred to a larger Bench due to conflicting decisions on whether a Munsif under Section 7-E acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata. The Act confers jurisdiction upon District Magistrates and other officers for various matters, and specifically mentions that a landlord or tenant can apply to the 'Munsif having jurisdiction' for certain orders, such as repairs. The primary question was whether the Munsif, when exercising this jurisdiction, acts as a part of his ordinary jurisdiction or as a special authority.

The judgment analyzed the ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif, which includes all original suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. The court noted that the dispute between a landlord and tenant over repairs is a civil dispute. The right to require repairs is created by Section 7-E, which also specifies that the Munsif with jurisdiction should enforce this right.

The judgment emphasized that the legislature had no reason to distinguish this jurisdiction from the ordinary jurisdiction over civil suits. The court interpreted the use of the term 'Munsif having jurisdiction' to mean territorial jurisdiction, which supports the argument that the Munsif acts as a court governed by the Civil Courts Act and not as a persona designata.

The court also considered various precedents where jurisdiction conferred upon a judge of a court was deemed to be exercised as a court and not as a persona designata. The court concluded that the Munsif, when acting under Section 7-E, does so as a part of his ordinary jurisdiction.

2. Whether an order passed by a Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC:

The court examined whether the Munsif's order under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court. The Munsif's court is created under the Bengal, Agra, and Assam Civil Courts Act, and any order passed in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by this Act is revisable by the High Court. The court noted that the ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif includes all suits of a civil nature, and the dispute over repairs between a landlord and tenant is a civil dispute.

The judgment highlighted that the legislature intended for the Munsif to act as a court when exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E. The court referred to various precedents where orders passed by a civil judge or Munsif under different statutes were held to be revisable by the High Court. The court also noted that if the Munsif were acting as a persona designata, there would be no necessity for a provision barring an appeal from his order, as the absence of such a provision would suffice.

The court concluded that the Munsif, when exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E, acts as a court and not as a persona designata. Therefore, an order passed by the Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC.

Final Judgment:
The court held that a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, is a Civil Court and not a persona designata. Consequently, an order passed by the Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC.