Criminal Appeal No 139 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 254
1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Criminal Case No 1 135 of 1985
Shanti Bhushan KM Tiwari LP Gaur and Ms Rani Jethmalani for the Appellant
UR Lalit not present PS Poti SK Gambhir Sanjay Sarin SN Khare and TC Sharma for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal
The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated April 35 1986 quashing the final order made under sec
145 of Cr
PC in respect of a shop premises
The shop was in possession of one Asgarali son of Akbar Ali as mortgagee since October 17 1969
On August 7 1982 Asgarali was said to have leased out the shop to the petitioner and also delivered possession thereof
The entering of possession by the petitioner became a subject matter of dispute
Apprehending breach of peace the police initiated proceedings under sec
145 Cr
PC before the Additional District Magistrate Ujjain
In that proceedings the petitioner was party No 2 and respondent PG NO 586 No 2 was party No 1 On August 13 1982 the Magistrate made a preliminary order
The proceedings continued for about three years
On May 17 1985 the Magistrate made the final order in the following terms Hence I believe that the party No 2 Jhummamal alias Devandass So Jethanand had the occupation within two months from 138
1982 on which summons were issued by the court under sec
145 sub sec
Hence I order that party No 2 Jhummamal is entitled for the occupation of the shop unless he is evicted by procedure established by law
And I issue injunction that there should not be any obstacle in handing over the possession to Jhummamal
And if there are locks placed by Motilal or his accomplices the same should be broken open
And the goods if any found in the shop should be handed over to a responsible person after making a panchnama
 It will be seen from the above order that the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession since he was dispossessed forcibly and wrongfully within the terms of proviso to sec
1454 of Cr
PC But unfortunately the petitioner could not be put into possession
On July 15 1985 the respondent filed a suit for injunction
On August 14 1985 he obtained temporary injunction against the appellant
But upon appeal that temporary injunction was vacated
The learned First Additional District Judge who delivered the Judgment in that appeal has recorded the following findings Consequently it is clear from the above analysis that Asgar Ali was in possession of the disputed shop till 7 882
It seems to be his prima facie right to rent out the shop
That it seems that he received the rent in advance executed the rent deed and transferred the possession to appellantJhummamal
As it is mentioned above the First Information Report lodged by Kanhayalal on behalf of Jhummamal in which it is stated that Jhummamal obtained possession on 9882 does not seem right when only respondent has demanded possession in his petition dated 13882
Hence I believe that Jhummamal obtained the possession of the disputed shop in the capacity as tenant
Respondent and his brothers put their locks later on
And PG NO 587 as in my opinion on the date of occurrence of incident Jhummamal was in possession of the shop respondentplaintiff does not have a prima facie case in his favour Hence I believe that the temporary injunction order passed by the lower court is not just and as per law
Consequently while disagreeing with the order passed by the lower court I accept the appeal and quash the order passed by the lower court
 In between the parties there were also certain criminal proceedings regarding the theft from and house trespass on the same premises
A couple of days before the preliminary order was made under sec
145 Cr
PC a relation of the appellant filed report before the Police complaining against the respondent
On that report the respondent was prosecuted under secs
380 and 454 of the IPC
On February 22 1984 he was convicted of the said offences
But upon appeal he as acquitted by the Additional District Judge
The revision against the order of acquittal was also dismissed by the High Court
It may also be relevant to state that the respondent challenged the final order under sec
1456 of the Cr
PC in a revision before the sessions Judge
On September 27 1985 that revision was dismissed
After becoming unsuccessfull in the proceedings under sec
145 Cr
PC and also before civil court in the suit to or injunction
the respondent moved the High Court under sec
482 of Cr
PC to quash the proceedings under sec
145 Cr
The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the proceedings by following the judgment of this Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs State of U P1985 1 SCC 427The operative portion of the High Court order is as follows In view of the fact that civil proceedings in respect of the disputed premises is pending before the competent civil court where interim reliefs have been prayed for and obtained the reappears to be no justification for continuing with the proceedings us 145 Cr
PC pending before the SDM Shri Tiwari learned counsel submitted that in case the plaintiff s suit is either withdrawn or dismissed he would be left with no remedy
This submission cannot be accepted PG NO 588 in view of the Supreme Court judgment as reported in Ram Sumer Puri vs State of UP AIR 1985 SC 472
Section 145 is intended to provide a special remedy for the prevention of breach of peace arising out of a dispute relating to immovable property
Its primary object is to maintain the public peace and not to decide disputes between the contending parties or adjudicate upon the rights of the parties to possession
Now that the civil court is seized of the matters it is desirable that such parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter and dispute should not be allowed to continue in the criminal court as it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court which is one of the grounds for invoking section 482 Cr
For the foregoing reasons this petition deserves to be allowed
It is accordingly allowed
The proceedings us 145 Cr
PC pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Ujjain along with the orders passed therein is therefore quashed
 The validity of the aforesaid order has been called into question in this appeal
It will be obvious from the order of the High Court that the decision of this Court in Ram Sumer s case has been totally misunder stood
In that case a title suit for possession and injunction in respect of certain property was instituted before the civil court
The suit was dismissed on February 28 1981
The matter was taken up in appeal
When the appeal was pending for disposal proceedings under sec
145 Cr
PC were initiated with regard to the same property
In that proceedings the Magistrate passed a preliminary order under sec
1451 of the Cr
PC and also attached the property
The aggrieved party challenged that order in a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court
The High Court refused to interfere with that order
But this Court quashed the proceedings under sec
145 Cr
PC observing  There is no scope to doubt ar dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us
Counsel for respondents 2 5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court the criminal court should not be allowed to PG NO 589 invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute
Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation
We are therefore satisfied that parallel proceedings should flat continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed
We fail to understand how the High Court in this case took advantage of the decision of this Court in Ram Sumer s case
The ratio of the said decision is that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter
That does not mean that a concluded order under sec
145 Cr
PC made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil court
An order made under sec
145 Cr
PC deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day
It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property
The order is subject to decision of the civil court
The unsuccessful party therefore must get relief only in the civil court
He may move the civil court with properly constituted suit
for may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to possession
The civil court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached
Counsel for the respondent however suggested that having regard to the nature of dispute and the rights of parties relating to the property in question we should not exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution
We do not think that the contention could be accepted in view of the patently erroneous order of the High Court
In the result we allow the appeal set aside that order of the High Court and restore that of the Magistrate
The parties may work out their rights as per law
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant landlord filed a civil suit against the respondent tenant for possession of a shop which had been rented out by him in 1978
The suit was filed on the basis that the respondent was in arrears of rent from lst December 1981 to 31st May1982 that the tenancy had been terminated by giving a suit notice and that section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1973_exempted the building from the purview of the Act
On or about 15th February 1983 the respondent tenant filed his written statement and in November 1984 moved an application for dismissal of the suit stating that the shop in question was constructed in June 1974 and as such the period of 10 year had elapsed by June 1984 in terms of section 1 3 of the Act and as such the immunity from the application of the Act having expired the suit under the Act is not maintainable and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred
The Sub Judge held that the decree was not necessary to be passed within the exemption period of 10 years under section 1 3 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the respondent s application
The respondent preferred a revision petition to the High Court  which held that as the suit had not been decreed within the period of 10 years the building in question came within the operation of the Act and as such PG NO 528 PG NO 529 the rent Act was applicable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction
The High Court allowed the petition and consequently dismissed the suit pending before the Sub Judge
The landlord appealed to this Court by Special Leave
Allowing the appeal and remanding the case HELD la The rights of the parties will have to be determined on the basis of the rights available to them on the date of the suit
The Judgment and Order of the High Court set aside and order of the Sub Judge restored
The suit to proceed in accordance with law
533G 535F b Section 13 of the Act provides that the tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of the said Section
Those provisions world not be applicable under Section 13 to a suit instituted within 10 years from the date of the completion of the building in question
534B c It is well settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the Court or delay in the procedure
Actus curiam neminem gravabit   an act of Court shall prejudice no man
534E d Having regard to the time normally consumed for adjudication the 10 years exemption or holiday from the application of the Rent Act would become illusory if the suit has to he filed within that time and be disposed of finally
534F e It is common knowledge that unless a suit is instituted soon after the date of letting it world never be disposed of within 10 years and even then within that time it may not be disposed of
That will make the 10 years holiday from the Rent Act illusory and provide no incentive to the landlords to build new holiday to solve problem of shortages of houses
The purpose of the legislation would thus be defeated
534G f Bearing in mind the well settled principle that the rights of parties crystallise on the date of the institution of the suit the meaningful construction must be that the exemption world apply for a period of 10 years and will continue to be available until the suit is disposed of or adjudicated
Such suit or proceedings must be instituted within the stipulated period of 10 years
Once rights crystallise the adjudication must be in accordance with law
535E PG NO 530 Vineet Kumar vs Mangal Sain Wadhera 1984 3 SCC 352 Nand Kishore Marwah and Ors
vs Samundri Devi   Om Prakash Gupta vs Dig
Vijendrapal Gupta   Ram Saroop Rai vs Lilavati   referred to
2a Purposive interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an imperative irrespective of anything else
534G b Judicial time and energy is more often than not consumed in Finding what is the intention of the Parliament or in other words the will of the people
The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made by signs most natural and probable and these signs are either the words the context the subject matter the effects and consequences or the spirit and reasons of the law
534H 535A c Each word phrase or sentence has to be construed in the light of the purpose of the Act itself but words must be construed with imagination of purpose behind them
Though the Court is concerned with seeking of intention it is rather looking to the meaning of the word that the legislator has used and the true meaning of the words used
535B Poppatlal Shah vs State of Madras  and Black Clawson International Ltd vs Papierwerke Walnhof Aschaffenburg A G 1975 AC 591 at 613