Case: Lala Ram Swarup And Others Vs. Shikar Chand And Another

that the jurisdiction conferred on the Commissioner under S. 3 (3) is exactly similar to the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will be recalled that S. 115 of the Code confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court to make such order as it thinks fit in a given case, if the subordinate Court whose order is brought before the High Court under S. 115"appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity".There is no doubt that the requirements of Cls. (a), (b) and (c) all centre round the question about the jurisdiction of the subordinate Court, and the view which has been accepted by the majority decision under appeal is that the same limitation must be imported in construing the scope of the authority and power conferred on the Commissioner by S. 3 (3).23. Let us examine whether this conclusion is right. In construing the provision of S. 3 (3), one factor which is patent is that it does not refer to any considerations of jurisdiction at all.In fact, it is not easy to conceive of a limitation as to jurisdiction being relevant in S. 3 (3) because the said provision deals with orders passed by District Magistrate, and the District Magistrates normally would have jurisdiction to deal with applications made by landlords. But quite apart from this aspect of the matter, the words used in S. 3 (3) are unambiguous. There are three categories of cases in which the Commissioner can interfere with the order passed by the District Magistrate. If the District Magistrate has acted illegally the Commissioner can interfere with his order, so can he interfere with the order if the District Magistrate has acted with material irregularity; and lastly, the Commissioner can interfere with the order of the District Magistrate if the District Magistrate has wrongly refused to act. This last clause is wide enough to empower the Commissioner to correct the error committed by the District Magistrate in making an order brought before him; quite clearly if the District Magistrate refuses to grant permission and the Commissioner thinks that in doing so, he has committed an error, that would be a case where the District Magistrate "has wrongly refused to act", and that would give the Commissioner jurisdiction to exercise his revisional power.24. It is significant that the revisional application can be made to the Commissioner only against order passed by the District Magistrate granting or refusing to grant such permission. It is, we think, fallacious to assume that a party can move the Commissioner under S. 3 (3) in cases where the District Magistrate just refuses to make an order on the application made by the landlord for permission to bring a suit against the tenant. If a District Magistrate just does not deal with the application and passes no order on it, the party aggrieved may be justified in applying for an appropriate writ to the High Court or adopt some other suitable remedy in law; but a revision in such a case does not appear to be competent under S. 3 (3). Besides, the illegality or the irregularity to which S. 3 (3) refers need not necessarily be correlated with questions of jurisdiction. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in introducing a limitation pertaining to questions of jurisdiction in determining the scope of the width of the revisional power conferred on the Commissioner by S. 3 (3). That is why it must be held that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the permission granted by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S. 3 (3) is invalid in law. As we have already emphasised, the only plea which can be raised before a Civil Court in relation to orders passed under the relevant provisions of the Act can be a plea which, if sustained, would render the order wholly invalid and as such, a nullity. No other plea can be raised, because all other pleas are barred by Ss. 3 (4) and 16 of the Act.25. In this connection, we may incidentally point out that by a subsequent amendment of S. 3 (3), the Legislature has made it clear that its intention is to confer wide jurisdiction on the Commissioner. The amendment in question has been introduced by Act 17 of 1954. The amended provision reads thus:-"The Commissioner shall hear the application made under sub-section (2), as far as may be, within six weeks from the date of making it, and he may, if he is not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or property of the order passed by the District Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceedings held before him, alter or reverse his order, or make such other order as may be just and proper There is no doubt that under this amended provision, the Commissioner can deal not only with the legality, but also with the correctness and property of the order passed by District Magistrate. In our opinion, the position about the Commissioners powers was not different even under the unamended provision."26. It may also be relevant to point out that the power conferred on the State Government at all material times by S. 7-F, was very wide. As we have already indicated, in exercise of its powers under S. 7-F, the State Government can pass such orders as appear to it to be necessary in the ends of justice. Therefore, there is no doubt that the relevant provisions of the Act did not intend, even prior to the amendment of 1954, to limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner only to cases where irregularity or illegality had been committed by the District Magistrate in granting or refusing to grant permission.27.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. It would thus be seen that the scheme of S. 3 is that if a landlord wants to bring a suit to eject his tenant, he has to apply to the District Magistrate for permission to do so. The District Magistrate may grant or refuse to grant such permission. After the District Magistrate makes an order on the landlords application, the party aggrieved by the order can apply in revision to the Commissioner within 30 days; and the Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, has to deal with the revision application under S. 3 (3). If he is satisfied that the District Magistrate has acted illegally or with material irregularity, or has wrongly refused to act, he can make an appropriate order; and the order thus made by him is final under sub-s. (4), subject to any order that the State Government may pass under S. 7-F of theis clear that the power conferred on the State Government by S. 7-F to revise the orders passed by the Commissioner under S. 3 (3) is very wide. In the first place, the State Government need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf. It may call for the record suo motu and it can exercise its powers in the interest of justice. In other words, whenever it is brought to the notice of the State Government either by a party aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner or otherwise, that the order passed by the Commissioner is unfair or unjust, the State Government may in the ends of justice pass an appropriate order revising the order made by the Commissioner. That, in brief, is the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Act relating to the grant of permission to the landlord to sue his tenant in ejectment.12.One of the points which is often treated as relevant in dealing with the question about the exclusion of civil Courts jurisdiction, is whether the special statute which, it is urged, excludes such jurisdiction, has used clear and unambiguous words indicating that intention. Another test which is applied is: does the said statute provide for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party that may be aggrieved by the relevant order under its material provisions? Applying these two tests, it does appear that the words used in S. 3 (4) and S. 16 are clear. Section 16 in terms provides that the order made under this Act to which the said section applies shall not be called in question in any Court. This is an express provision excluding the civil Courts jurisdiction. Section 3 (4) does not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Courts, but, in the context, the inference that the civil Courts jurisdiction is intended to be excluded, appears to be inescapable. Therefore, we are satisfied that Mr. Goyal is right in contending that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is excluded in relation to matters covered by the orders included within the provisions of S. 3 (4) and S. 16.This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the plea against the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate, or the Commissioner, or the State Government, can never be raised in a civil Court. In our opinion, the bar created by the relevant provisions of the Act excluding the jurisdiction of the civil Courts cannot operate in cases where the plea raised before the civil Court goes to the root of the matter and would, if upheld, lead to the conclusion that the impugned order is athe special statute prescribes certain mandatory conditions subject to which the order in question can be passed, and the said mandatory provisions are violated, the validity of the said orders can be challenged in a civil proceeding. Similarly, if principles of natural justice are not complied with, the orders passed in violation of the said principles would be wholly inoperative in law and their validity can be impeached in civil proceedings.19.Therefore, while upholding the contention raised by Mr. Goyal that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred, we wish to make it clear that this contention will not avail Mr. Goyal if the respondents plea, if upheld, would render the permission granted by the Commissioner totally invalid and ais, we think, fallacious to assume that a party can move the Commissioner under S. 3 (3) in cases where the District Magistrate just refuses to make an order on the application made by the landlord for permission to bring a suit against the tenant. If a District Magistrate just does not deal with the application and passes no order on it, the party aggrieved may be justified in applying for an appropriate writ to the High Court or adopt some other suitable remedy in law; but a revision in such a case does not appear to be competent under S. 3 (3). Besides, the illegality or the irregularity to which S. 3 (3) refers need not necessarily be correlated with questions of jurisdiction. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in introducing a limitation pertaining to questions of jurisdiction in determining the scope of the width of the revisional power conferred on the Commissioner by S. 3 (3). That is why it must be held that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the permission granted by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S. 3 (3) is invalid in law. As we have already emphasised, the only plea which can be raised before a Civil Court in relation to orders passed under the relevant provisions of the Act can be a plea which, if sustained, would render the order wholly invalid and as such, a nullity. No other plea can be raised, because all other pleas are barred by Ss. 3 (4) and 16 of the Act.It may also be relevant to point out that the power conferred on the State Government at all material times by S. 7-F, was very wide. As we have already indicated, in exercise of its powers under S. 7-F, the State Government can pass such orders as appear to it to be necessary in the ends of justice. Therefore, there is no doubt that the relevant provisions of the Act did not intend, even prior to the amendment of 1954, to limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner only to cases where irregularity or illegality had been committed by the District Magistrate in granting or refusing to grant permission.