Appeal No 356 of 1965
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 27 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No 240 of 1964
B Sen and M section Gupta for the appellants
section T Desai and A G Ratnaparkhi for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sarkar J
The first respondent Tikam Das had let out a house in the city of Jabalpur to the second respondent Surya Kant Naidoo
Sometime in 1961 Tikam Das herein referred to as the landlord served a notice on Surya Kant herein referred to as the tenant terminating the tenancy and later in the same year filed a suit in a civil court against the latter for ejectment
On June 23 1962 by consent of parties a decree for ejectment was passed in that suit in favour of the landlord against the tenant
The appellants who were occupying the premises as sub tenants under the tenant had not been made parties to the suit
On June 25 and 26 1962 the appellants served notices on the landlord under section 152 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommo dation Control Act 1961 which had come into force on Decem ber 30 1961 claiming that as the tenant had sub let the premises to them before the Act had come into force with the consent of the landlord they had become his direct tenants under section 162 of the Act and on June 28 1962 the appellants filed a suit against both the landlord and the tenant in a civil court claiming a declaration that they had in the circumstances become direct tenants of the premises under the landlord
On June 30 1962 the landlord sent a reply to the notices sent by the appellants in which he denied that the sub letting by the tenant had been with his consent or was lawful
It does not appear that the landlord had put his decree in execution for evicting the appellants
One of the points canvassed in the High Court was whether in view of section 451 of the Act a civil court was competent to entertain the appellants  suit and it held that it was not and in that view of the matter dismissed the suit
The question is whet her the High Court was right
The Act established certain authorities called Rent Controlling Authorities and gave them power to decide various matters
Sub 130 section 1 of section 45 states that no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to any  matter which the Rent Controlling Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide
If therefore the suit related to a matter which a Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to decide the civil court would have no jurisdiction to entertain it
Now the appellant s suit was for a declaration that they had become direct tenants under the landlord by virtue of section 162 of the Act
That provision is in these terms section 16
1 2 Where before the commencement of this Act the interest of a tenant in respect of any accommodation has been determined without determining the interest of any sub tenant to whom the accommodation either in whole or in part had been lawfully sub let the subtenant shall with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the landlord if the tenancy had continued
Clearly the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit of this provision unless the sub letting to them was lawful
This is where their difficulty arises
Sub section 2 of section 15 deals with the case of a sub letting before the Act and provides for a notice of the sub letting being given to the landlord by the tenant and the sub tenant
There is no dispute that the sub letting to the appellants was before the Act and they had given the notice
The subletting therefore comes within sub section
2 of section 15
Then we come to sub section
3 of section 15 which provides Where in any case mentioned in sub section 2 the landlord contests that the accommodation was not lawfully sub let and an application is made to the Rent Controlling Authority in this behalf either by the landlord or by the sub tenant within two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of sub letting by the landlord or the issue of the notice by the tenant or the sub tenant as the case may be the Rent Controlling Authority shall decide the dispute
 This sub section empowers a Rent Controlling Authority to decide whether a sub letting was lawful where the landlord disputes that the subletting was lawful on an application made to it by either party within the period mentioned
When the Rent Controlling Authorities have the power to decide the lawfulness of the subletting a civil court is plainly debarred from deciding that question by section 451
In the present case the landlord did contend 131 that the sub letting was not lawful
The appellants s suit was filed within the period mentioned in sub section
3 of section 15
So the Rent Controlling Authorities had the power to decide the question on which the appellants  suit depended
It follows that the suit related to a matter which the Rent Controlling Authorities had power to decide and no civil court was therefore competent to entertain it
Hence we think that the High Court was right in deciding that the suit had been filed in a court incompetent to entertain it and in dismissing it
It was said that a Rent Controlling Authority would have no power to decide a dispute as to whether a sub letting was lawful where the notice mentioned in section 152 had not been served orafter the period mentioned in sub section
3 of that section had expired if it had not been moved earlier
Another question mooted was that the two months mentioned in sub section
3 only provided a special period of limitation for the application mentioned in it and the provision of the period did not mean that a Rent Controlling Authority had power to decide the matter only if an application had been made within that period so that if no such application had been made after the expiry of the period a civil court would have jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to whether a sub letting was lawful
The point is that the real effect of section 153 was to deprive the civil court of the jurisdiction to decide that dispute for all time
We do not feel called upon to decide these questions
They do not arise in the present case and it was not said that these questions affect the question of the competence of the civil court to try the present suit
They clearly do not
The suit was filed within the period of two months during which admittedly the Rent Controlling Authorities had jurisdiction to decide the dispute on which it was based
Whatever may be the jurisdiction of a civil court on other facts in the present case it clearly had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellants  suit
It was said on behalf of the appellants that section 153 had no application to the present case as the landlord had before the appellants  suit was filed obtained a decree against the tenant for eviction
We are unable to accept this contention
There is nothing in sub section
3 of section 15 to indicate that it does not apply to a case where a landlord has obtained such a decree
If in spite of the decree the appellants had a right under the Act to a direct tenancy under the landlord they had a right to move the Rent Controlling Authority within the period mentioned now expired for a decision of the question that the sub letting to them 132 was lawful
If the Rent Controlling Authority had the power to decide that question a civil court would not be competent to decide the dispute in a suit brought within that period
So the decree does not make a civil court a court competent to entertain the suit
It was also said that as the landlord had not applied under sub section
3 of section 15 and this is not disputed by the landlord that provision is put out of the way and it must now be held that the appellants had become direct tenants under him
The words of the sub section lend no support to this contention
The appellants can claim the direct tenancy only when they establish that the sub letting to them was lawful
As they claim that right they must establish it and they do not do so by the failure of the landlord to move for a decision that the sub letting was not lawful
This contention of the appellants seems to us to be untenable
In any case it is difficult to appreciate how the failure of the landlord to apply under section 153 would affect the question of the competence of a civil court to entertain the appellants  suit which had been filed before the time limited by the sub section for the landlord to apply to a Rent Controlling Authority had expired
We now come to sub section
2 of section 45 of the Act which is in these terms  S45
1 2Nothing in sub section 1 shall be construed as preventing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any accommodation to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such accommodation
It is said by the appellants that their suit raises a question of title to the tenanted premises within the meaning of that word as used in the subsection
This contention does not seem to us to be well founded
Accommodation has been defined in the Act as a building garden ground out house or garage appurtenant to it its fixtures and furniture supplied for use there and also land not used for agricultural purpose
The word therefore refers to property of certain varieties and in our opinion the words title to any accommodation in the sub section mean a right to or interest in property existing otherwise than under the Act and not those created by it
It does not include a subtenant s right created by the Act to be treated under certain cir 133
cumstances as the direct tenant of the landlord
This seems to us to be clear from the whole scheme of the Act which is to create certain rights and to leave them in certain cases to be decided by the Rent Controlling Authority established under it quickly inexpensively and summarily and with restricted rights of appeal from their decision
The object of the Act as disclosed by its scheme would be defeated if civil courts were to adjudicate upon the rights which it was intended the Rent Controlling Authorities would decide with all the consequent delay expense and series of appeals
Again if the civil courts had the power to decide such rights section 15 3 would be meaningless for the decision of the dispute as to whether sub letting was lawful was necessary only for establishing a sub tenant s right to a direct tenancy under the landlord under section 16 2
Sub section 2 of section 45 was clearly intended only to protect a right to resort to a civil court for the decision of a question as to an interest in property existing apart from the Act concerning which an adjudication may have been incidentally made by a Rent Controlling Authority in deciding a question which it had been expressly empowered by the Act to decide
We therefore think that sub section
2 of section 45 does not authorise a civil court to decide the dispute as to the lawfulness of the sub letting and does not therefore make it competent to entertain the appellants  suit
For these reasons in our view no civil court had jurisdiction to try the appellants  suit and it was rightly dismissed as having been filed in an incompetent tribunal
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 who was the landlord of the accommodation in dispute obtained a decree of ejectment against respondent No 2 his tenant
The appellants who were sub tenants under respondent No 2 gave a notice to the landlord under section 152 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Order 1961 and thereafter filed a suit against him claiming a declaration that being lawful sub tenants they had become direct tenants of the landlord under s 162 of the Act
The High Court held that the suit was barred by section 451 of the Act according to which no civil court could enter Lain any suit or proceeding in so far as it related to any matter which the Rent Controlling Authority under the Act was empowered to decide
In appeal to the Supreme Court
HELD  1 For section 162 to come into operation the sub tenancy has to be lawful
The question of lawfulness of a sub tenancy was one which under section 153 the Rent Controlling Authority was empowered to decide
Under section 451 of the Act no civil court could entertain a suit or proceeding which the Rent Controlling Authority was empowered to decide Me High Court was therefore right in holding that the suit had been filed in a court incompetent to try it and in dismissing it
13OH 131B iiThere is nothing in section 153 of the Act to indicate that it does not apply to a case where a landlord has already obtained a decree against a tenant
If in spite of the decree the appellants had a right under the Act to a direct tenancy under the landlord they had a right to move the Rent Controlling Authority within the prescribed period for a decision of the question that the subletting to them was lawful
If the Rent Controlling Authority had the power to decide that question a civil court would not be competent to decide the dispute in a suit brought within that period
The suit by the appellants had been filed within that period
131G 132B iiiThe fact that the landlord had not applied under section 153 did not affect the issue as it was for the appellants as sub tenants to prove that the sub letting to them was lawful
 132C ivSection 452 also did not help the appellants
That provision was clearly intended only to protect a right to resort to a civil court for the decision of a question as to an interest in property existing apart from the Act concerning which an adjudication may have been incidentally made by a Rent Controlling Authority in deciding a question which it had been empowered by the Act to decide
It does not authorise a civil court to decide a dispute as to the lawfulness of sub letting for the purpose of section 162
133 C E 129