Siddhartha Chattopadhyay JUDGMENT
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This revisional application is directed against the Order No. 10 dated 30.08.2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Baruipur. In the said impugned order, the Learned Court below has partly allowed the petition under Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff-tenant.
2. Being aggrieved at it the petitioner/defendant has filed this revisional application mainly on the ground that the Learned Court below failed to appreciate the position of law and exceeded his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and thus came to an erroneous finding that the condition of the suit room is a dilapidated one. Ventilating her such grievances she had prayed for rejection of the said impugned order.
3. A very interesting point of law is involved in this case. Factual aspects being not disputed, this Court does not like to reiterate the same because it would be an unnecessary parade of words.
4. In the instant case the tenant/plaintiff has filed a suit praying for a declaration of his tenancy right along with other reliefs. The petitioner/landlord appeared there as defendant.
5. The tenant/plaintiff had prayed for appointment of Local Inspection Commissioner for establishing his claim that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition. The said commissioner has submitted his report which is partially in favour of the tenant/plaintiff. Thereafter the tenant/plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and prayed for giving him a permission to repair the suit premises.
6. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/landlady has submitted that in view of amendment of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 and as amended time to time, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application because as per Section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act jurisdiction of Civil Court is totally barred. So he has prayed for interference of this Court. In support of his contention he has referred to two decisions reported in MANU/SC/0370/1987 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court (SC) 752 (Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava Vs. Union of India) and a decision reported in MANU/SC/0157/1968 : AIR 1968 Supreme Court (SC) 78 (Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P.). Referring these two citations he has submitted that Civil Court's Jurisdiction is completely ousted in such type of cases. In the interest of effective adjudication of this controversy, I like to quote the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in connection with the decision reported in MANU/SC/0370/1987 : AIR 1988 SC 752 is concerned. "Generally speaking the broad guiding considerations are that wherever a right, not pre-existing in common law, is created by a statute and that state itself provided a machinery for the enforcement of the right, both the right and the remedy having been created 'Uno Flatu' and a finality is intended to the result of the statutory proceeding, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary provision the Civil Courts Jurisdiction is impliedly barred."
7. The spirit of the decisions reported in MANU/SC/0157/1968 : AIR 1969 Supreme Court page 78 is such where the statute gives a finality to the order of the special tribunals, the Civil Court's Jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit.
8. As against this Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/tenant has citied three decisions which is reported in [2006] 3 CHN 213, [2007] 2 CLJ 546 and MANU/WB/0281/2004 : [2004] 4 CHN 428. Ratio of all these judgments go to show that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. By referring the judgment reported in MANU/SC/0338/1965 : AIR 1966 Supreme Court 893 (Ram -Vs. Sikhar Chand) this Hon'ble Court held that the bar created by the relevant provisions of the Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot operate in cases where the plea raised before the Civil Court goes to the root of the matter.
9. After going through the said decisions I find that in the instant case the tenant/opposite party had filed a suit for a declaration of his tenancy right along with other reliefs. The suit for a declaration of tenancy right itself is a suit of civil nature.
10. At the time of hearing Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that under Section 39 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act power of the rent controller has been explained and in those respects Civil Court has nothing to do. Section 35 deals with repair and taking of measures for maintenance of essential services.
11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/tenant has bolstered up his submission stating inter alia, that Section 44 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act does not say that power and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred totally in such a case. On a plain reading of Section 44 of the Act, I find that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to fixation of fair rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or 'to any other matter' which the controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide. (Emphasis supplied by me) Section 39 speaks of powers of controller and Section 39 Clause II speaks as such:-
(a) that the controller shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of a summoning and enforcing the tenants of any person and examining him on oath.
(b) Requiring the discover and production of document;
(c) Issuing commission for examination of witnesses;
(d) Issuing commission for local investigation (Emphasis supplied by me)
(e) Such other matter as may be prescribed.
So Section 39 Sub-Section 2 Clause (e) is almost in line with words incorporated in Section 44 of the said Act i.e. 'to any other matter' which the controller is empowered under this Act. (Emphasis supplied by me)
12. Legislature in its wisdom did not mention that the controller shall have any power of issuing commission for local inspection. In any suit, the Civil Court has obviously that right to issue commission for local inspection and entertains such an application, which the rent controller does not have. The Section 151 CPC was filed by the opposite party/tenant to ascertain if the suit premises require any repair or not and particularly when he runs a Jewellery Shop therein. Therefore it was not possible on his part to bring the clear picture before the Court without preferring an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code which the rent controller does not have. Rent Controller is concerned about Local Investigation Commission and not at all concerned regarding local inspection. The use of different terminology used in the two sections has to be considered in the light of objects and reasons of the Act. It is trite law that no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. We should not forget that statutes have to be construed so that the every word has a place and everything is in its place. One provision is to be read with other provisions of the same statute to make it a harmonious interpretation. The Court cannot read anything contrary to the language used by the legislature. When there is any ambiguity, the Court will endeavour in the light of the preamble i.e. for what objects the said Act was enacted. Intention of the legislature must be given a due consideration. At the time of placing the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Bill 1996 the objects and reasons of introduction of such bill was on the basis of recommendations of the National Housing Policy which is approved by the Central Government, creating enabling atmosphere for housing activities in the country and also to reform the rent legislation in such a way so that there is a balance between the interest of both the landlords and tenants.
13. When a title suit is already pending before a competent Court of law and when both parties appeared in the said suit, should a tenant be asked to go to another forum which relates to his declaration of tenancy right. The answer would be certainly big "NO", on the ground that there will be chances of multiplicity of proceeding, which law does not encourage. Secondly, in our present day where one window system is being introduced everywhere then it would be unwise to advice any litigant to go here for one issue and go to another forum for other issue to exercise his right when both are available in a particular forum.
14. Therefore, in my considered view, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not at all ousted when application for appointment of Local Inspection Commissioner is prayed for to ascertain the urgency of repair work. If such urgency is seen from the Commissioners Report in that case by exercising power conferred under Section 151 CPC, certainly Civil Court shall assume his jurisdiction and to pass an order if repair is essential. In that case Landlord be directed to effect such repair work so that such premises can be used and enjoyed properly. If the landlord refuses to do the repair work, the Civil Court shall be at liberty to direct the tenant to undertake to repair work by filing an estimate. Thereafter Civil Court shall assess the estimate and to pass necessary order to render substantial justice.
15. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revisional application and as a result, the impugned order passed by the Learned Court below is hereby affirmed.
16. Therefore, there being no merit in the revisional application the same is dismissed.
17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned Court below for information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.
18. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and Order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.