- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chhaganlal Jain v. T.K Hamid Sultan
Concise Analytical Summary of the Judicial Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
(Based exclusively on the provided opinion.)
This revision arises from a civil suit (O.S. No. 3877 of 1987, V Assistant City Civil Court, Madras) originally filed by the respondent (plaintiff) seeking mandatory reliefs and damages against the petitioner (tenant). The plaintiff alleged ownership of premises at No. 127, Audiappa Naickan Street, Madras-1 and that the petitioner, who occupied a ground-floor shop (25' × 40') as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- and carried on business as "Jeep Traders", demolished portions of the shop during the plaintiff's 15-day absence. The plaint alleges removal of fittings (iron shutter, teak wood and glass showcase, rafters) valued at about Rs. 10,000/-, further demolitions and new constructions, and continued construction despite objections.
The plaintiff sought (i) a mandatory injunction directing removal of new constructions and restoration of the premises to its original condition, (ii) a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining further construction, and (iii) damages of Rs. 19,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and costs.
The petitioner moved I.A. No. 3668 of 1997 to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, arguing (inter alia) absence of cause of action, bar by the Rent Control Act (which, he contended, overrides civil remedies under the Transfer of Property Act), and non-compliance with Order 7, Rule 14 particulars. The trial court dismissed that interlocutory application. The petitioner then filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action.
- Whether the plaint is barred by the Rent Control Act—i.e., whether the existence of the Rent Control Act prevents maintenance of a civil suit seeking restoration and damages (as opposed to eviction) between landlord and tenant.
- Whether the lower court committed jurisdictional error or otherwise erred in dismissing the application to reject the plaint.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Defendant's) Arguments
- The plaint does not disclose a cause of action and should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.
- The suit is barred by the Rent Control Act, which, being a special statute, overrides civil remedies under the Transfer of Property Act; therefore the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs claimed.
- The plaint is defective for lack of detailed particulars and for not filing documents required under Order 7, Rule 14(1) or 14(2), CPC.
- There has been no material alteration giving rise to a cause of action (as argued in support of bar under the Rent Control Act).
Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Arguments
- The petitioner's application is a dilatory device to prolong proceedings (pointing to earlier ex parte decrees set aside and multiple similar applications over the long pendency since 1987).
- The plaint is properly framed and not barred by the Rent Control Act; the reliefs sought (restoration and damages for waste) are common law remedies that cannot be granted by a Rent Controller.
- No valid ground under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC exists to reject the plaint; the suit should proceed to be decided on merits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 1987 (1) R.C.J. 262 — Arya Samaj v. Shri Sat Parkash | Illustrates that a Rent Controller's jurisdiction arises only if a landlord-tenant relationship is accepted; highlights when jurisdiction is absent and discusses the proper application of Order 7, Rule 11 in the context of Rent Control proceedings. | The court relied on the decision to show that jurisdictional issues before a Rent Controller are distinct and that dismissal under Order 7, Rule 11 may be erroneous where the matter was litigated on merits and no objection was raised earlier. The opinion used it to support the proposition that non-disclosure objections, if not raised early, may be waived and to illustrate limits of Rent Controller jurisdiction. |
| A.I.R. 1985 Delhi 248 — Arvind Berry v. Admiral A.P.S. Bindra (as cited) | Establishes that a plea of non-disclosure of cause of action, if not raised at the earliest stage, is deemed to have been waived. | The court invoked this principle to support the view that objections under Order 7, Rule 11 are to be considered in light of when they are raised and that delay or failure to raise such objections promptly affects their viability. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by examining the petitioner's contentions against statutory and procedural law, and against the facts as pleaded in the plaint:
- Statutory scope: The court noted Section 9, CPC, which permits filing of civil suits unless expressly or implicitly barred by statute. It rejected the petitioner's broad submission that the Rent Control Act entirely ousts civil jurisdiction whenever it operates.
- Proper interpretation of the Rent Control Act: The opinion explains that the Rent Control Act bars suits only insofar as they seek reliefs that are exclusively within the purview of the Rent Control Act (e.g., eviction under grounds recognized by that Act). The Rent Control Act does not state that all suits between landlords and tenants are barred in every circumstance.
- Nature of relief claimed: The respondent sought restoration of the building to its original condition and damages for alleged waste — remedies characterized by the court as common law reliefs (governed by the Specific Relief Act and general civil law), which are not reliefs that a Rent Controller can grant under the Rent Control Act.
- Distinction from eviction claims: The court observed that if the case were solely an eviction claim based on material alteration, the Rent Control Act might preclude a civil suit; but in the present case the relief sought was restoration and damages, not eviction, so the Rent Control Act did not bar the suit.
- Waste and landlord's rights: The court emphasised that, irrespective of whether the alteration is material enough to ground eviction, a landlord may prevent waste, seek restoration, and claim damages — rights which are not displaced by the Rent Control Act and which are within the competence of the Civil Court.
- Procedural improvidence and delay: The court considered the petitioner's conduct — multiple earlier applications, long pendency since 1987, previous ex parte decrees set aside, and the timing of the present application (after P.W.1's evidence was complete) — concluding the application was a belated effort to delay proceedings.
- On Order 7, Rule 11: The court explained the limited scope of Order 7, Rule 11 — the court must look only to the plaint to decide if it discloses a cause of action. It cannot resolve disputed factual contentions or examine evidence to decide the sufficiency of cause of action at the interlocutory stage. The court reiterated that correctness of the defence's contentions is to be decided at final disposal.
- Reliance on precedents: The judgment cited Delhi High Court decisions (Arya Samaj and Arvind Berry) to support two propositions: (a) jurisdictional limits of Rent Controllers and (b) that objections to non-disclosure, if not timely raised, may be deemed waived. The court also noted that Order 7, Rule 11 allows the court to take into account long delays when considering such interlocutory applications.
- Conclusion on jurisdictional error: The court found no illegality or excess of jurisdiction in the lower court's order dismissing the petitioner's application to reject the plaint.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
Revision dismissed. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution; the connected C.M.P. was also dismissed.
Implications (direct and limited, based on the opinion):
- The trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is upheld and the interlocutory relief to reject the plaint is denied.
- The plaint remains in the file and the civil suit may proceed; the decision recognizes that claims for restoration and damages (common law remedies) are maintainable in civil court notwithstanding the Rent Control Act, where the relief sought is not eviction or a relief exclusively within the Rent Controller's jurisdiction.
- No broader or novel precedent was announced by the court beyond applying settled principles: the decision rested on existing statutory interpretation and established authorities; the court explicitly found no error of jurisdiction and did not set aside prior doctrines beyond their ordinary application.
This revision is filed by the defendant in O.S No. 3877 of 1987, on the file of V Assistant City Civil Court, Madras.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to remove all the new constructions put up in the suit property described in the schedule and to restore the same to its original condition by replacing all the fittings removed by him from the suit property, for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from proceeding with the construction or altering the superstrcutre or additions to the suit property and further to direct the defendant to pay damages of Rs. 19,000/- caused by him together with interest at 12% p.a, from the date of plaint till date of payment, and for costs.
3. In the body of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises at No. 127, Audiappa Naickan Street, Madras-1 and the petitioner is the tenant of the shop measuring 25′ × 40′ in the ground floor portion, on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. It is said that the petitioner is carrying on the kirana business under the name and style of ‘Jeep Traders’. When the plaintiff was away from Madras for 15 days, the petitioner demolished the portion occupied by him. It is also said that the petitioner removed the iron shutter, teak wood and glass show case and teak wood rafters, the value of which is estimated to Rs. 10,000/-. He has further demolished several portions of the said shop and put up new constructions. In spite of objection raised, the petitioner is proceeding with the construction, without the permission of the plaintiff. It is under the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction to remove the new constructions and to restore the shop to its original condition and for recovery of the damages.
4. An application was filed as I.A No. 3668 of 1997, by the petitioner to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C In the affidavit filed in support of the said interlocutory application, it is stated that the plaint has not stated the cause of action and the plaint is barred by the provisions of the Rent Control Act, which over-rides the right of a Civil remedy under the Transfer of Property Act. It is further said that when the Rent Control Act is in operation, the General Law of Landlord and Tenant has to give way to the Special Act on that behalf. It is also said that detailed particulars have not been given and the plaintiff has also not filed any document under Order 7, Rule 14(1) or 14(2) C.P.C It is also stated that there is no material alteration, which gives him a cause of action.
5. For the said application, the respondent filed a detailed counter, stating that this is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to drag on the proceedings. It is stated that ex parte decree was passed earlier and set aside on payment of cost, and again when the petitioner was declared ex parte and when the case was posted for ex parte evidence, an application was again filed to set aside the ex parte order and it is now more than ten years since the suit is filed, and no ground has been made out under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the plaint. It is further said that the suit filed is perfectly correct and is not barred by the provisions of Rent Control Act, and the reliefs sought for in the suit cannot be granted by a Rent controller.
6. After hearing the arguments, the Lower Court dismissed the said application. It is against the said order; this revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I do not find any merit in the revision. It cannot be said that the lower Court has acted illegally in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in the plaint can at the most be a ground for eviction and therefore, the Rent Control Act alone has to be taken into consideration, and the Civil Suit cannot be maintained. I do not think that the said submission is based on any legal foundation.
8. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enables the respondent in filing a Civil Suit, unless the same is impliedly or expressly barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Control Act is the law, whereby the Civil Suit is barred. On going by the provisions of the Rent Control Act, only suit for eviction or proceedings to which relief under the Rent Control Act could be granted are barred. Nowhere in the Rent Control Act, it is stated that no suit between landlord and tenant is maintainable under any circumstances. Under the Rent Control Act, eviction of a tenant is barred unless grounds are made out under the provisions of that Act. In this case, the respondent is not seeking for eviction. According to the respondent, the tenant has made certain structural changes and he wanted to restore the building to its original position. That relief could not be granted by the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act. If a suit for eviction is filed on the ground that the tenant has committed a material alteration, probably the contention of the counsel may be correct. In this case, the petitioner does not want eviction. What he wanted was that the building must be restored to its original position. That is a common law relief, and provided under the Special Relief Act. That right is not taken away by any provisions of the Rent Control Act.
9. Even if it is not a material alteration so as to give a cause of action for eviction, the landlord is entitled to retain the building in its original condition. Even if the landlord does not want eviction, the tenant cannot contend that he will be in possession only after effects changes in the building. The landlord can prevent that action of the tenant on the ground that waste has been committed. He can prevent the tenant for committing the act of waste and also can claim damages for committing waste in the building. That relief also could not be granted by a Rent Controller. The reliefs sought for in this proceedings are coming within the scope of a common law remedy and are fully governed by Specific Relief Act. The suit is therefore, not barred.
10. The conduct of the petitioner also requires consideration in this connection. Even though the suit was filed in the year 1987, till date, the respondent is not in a position to get a finality. It is also stated in the impugned order itself that similar applications have already been filed earlier and subsequently, the petitioner did not prosecute the matter to a successful end. The same have to be dismissed for the default of the petitioner. Thereafter, the evidence of P.W.1 was also completed. It is at this stage, the present application has been filed. The Lower Court has rightly held that the present application has been filed without any bona fides and only intended to drag on the proceedings.
11. In this connection, a reading of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, makes it clear that the Court can take into consideration the long delay in filing the application as a ground to reject the same. In a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 1987 (1) R.C.J 262 (Arya Samaj v. Shri Sat Parkash), where the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable to the Delhi Rent Control Act, learned Judge of the Delhi High Court, held thus:—
“ The Rent Controller gets a jurisdiction only if landlord-tenant relationship is accepted by both the parties. If the finding of the Tribunal that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller's order will suffer from arrogating jurisdiction, which law does not confer on him. This is not a case of nondisclosure of cause of action; this is a case of want of jurisdiction. But, assuming that no cause of action was disclosed, no such objection was raised before the Rent Controller and the suit was contested on merits after both the parties lead their evidence. The impugned order dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 was erroneous.”
Similar is the case reported in A.I.R 1985 Delhi 248 (Arvind Berry… v. Admiral A.P.S Bindra….), which is also a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act, wherein a learned Judge of Delhi High Court said that “if the plea of non-disclosure of cause of action is not raised at the earliest stage, the same must be deemed to have been waived.”
12. It is settled law that for the purpose of looking into the cause of action, Court is expected only to look into the plaint and not the contentions of the defendant. The wording that is used in Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C, is “where the plaint does not disclose the cause of action”; that means, the Court is expected to look into the plaint, whether it disclosed the cause of action. If the contention of the petitioner is that the plaintiff has no cause of action, that will not be a ground to reject the plaint. The correctness of the said contention can be gone into only when the suit is finally disposed of.
13. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that he is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant, and against the contract of tenancy, some structural changes have been made by the tenant and the said act being unlawful, he wanted to restore the building to its original position and required damages for the waste committed. I do not think that the contention of the petitioner that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action could be accepted. In this case P.W.1 has also been examined and it is at this stage, making use of his evidence also he wanted to get the plaint rejected, that means the petitioner wanted the lower Court to look into the evidence and thereafter to reject the plaint. The scope of Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C, was not properly understood, when such an application was filed.
14. I do not find that there is any error of jurisdiction or that the lower Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the application. No ground has been made to interfere with the impunged order under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. The connected C.M.P is also dismissed.
G.S/RR/VCS
Alert