Civil court jurisdiction remains available for nuisance and easement disputes where statutory eviction powers do not cover the relief sought.

Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 exclude civil court jurisdiction only for matters the Act specifically empowers the Authority or Tribunal to decide. A suit seeking removal of unauthorized construction, restoration of water supply, and injunction against interference with easementary and nuisance-related rights was not confined to eviction from authority premises or any order under the Act's eviction provisions. Because the reliefs concerned alleged infringement of privacy, light, air, water, and drainage rights, the statutory bar did not apply and the presumption in favour of civil court jurisdiction remained intact. The civil suit was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit seeking removal of unauthorized construction, restoration of water connection, and injunction against interference with easementary rights is barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.

Analysis: The statutory bar in Sections 71 and 177 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts only in respect of matters that the Act empowers the Authority or Tribunal to determine. The reliefs claimed in the suit were not for eviction from authority premises or for any order or action under the eviction provisions. The suit was founded on alleged infringement of the plaintiff's privacy, light, air, water supply, and drainage caused by unauthorized construction. The remedy sought was removal of the construction, restoration of water connection, and injunction against nuisance, which lay beyond the limited eviction powers under the Act. In such circumstances, the presumption in favour of civil court jurisdiction was not displaced.

Conclusion: The civil suit was maintainable and was not barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Act.

---