Case: Munni Devi &amp; Anr Vs. Gokal Chand &amp; Ors

1. Gokal Chand - first respondent in this appeal - was a tenant of shop No. 34/2, Dispensary Road, Dehra Dun, which belongs to Munni Devi - the first appellant in this appeal. Munni Devi applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehra Dun, for an order in ejectment on the plea that Gokal Chand had committed default in paying rent. The R. C. and E. Officer passed an order observing that the tenant did not lead any evidence to show that he had not vacated the shop and it was clear on the evidence that the tenant was not in occupation of the shop and had let it out to one Alladia. He accordingly declared that the shop was vacant.2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop to Kishorilal. Kishorilal then applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the shop allotted to him was in the illegal occupation of Rawal Chand, son of Gokal Chand. On May 22, 1957, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared that Gokal Chand the previous tenant, had vacated the shop and the Rawal Chand was in illegal occupation of the shop. He accordingly issued notice under Section 7A (3) of the Ae.3. Gokal Chand then filed a civil suit in the Court of the Munsif, Dehra Dun, for a declaration that he was an allottee and a tenant of the shop and that he was in possession in that capacity. To that suit were impleaded Munni Devi and Kishorilal as party defendants. The trial Court held that Gokal Chand had at no time vacated the shop, nor was his tenancy terminated. He accordingly made an order declaring that Gokal Chand was an allottee and a tenant of the shop and was entitled to remain in occupation of the same. An appeal against that order to the District Court was dismissed. A second appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful.

Reasoning:
We are unable to agree with thatrule was approved by this Court in Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, 1952 SCR 696   = (AIR 1952 SCLegislature has invested the District Magistrate with power on the existence of a vacancy to allot the premises to another person, but the Legislature has not made the determination of the preliminary state of facts by the District Magistrate conclusive. The jurisdiction to pass an order in ejectment only arises if there is a vacancy. The right of a tenant in possession is a valuable right and there is nothing in Section 7 or Section 7A which confers jurisdiction upon the District Magistrate to conclusively determine the facts on the existence of which his jurisdiction arises. Undoubtedly he has jurisdiction to make orders under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act, if there be a vacancy. But where there is a vacancy is jurisdictional fact which could not to be decided by him finally.By reaching an erroneous decision, he cannot clothe himself with jurisdiction which he does not possess. It is only when the order is with jurisdiction that the order is not liable to be challenged in a Civil Court by virtue of Section 16 of the Act.i Devi applied for an order in ejectment against Gokal Chand on the plea that he had committed default in paying rent.The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that Gokal Chand had vacated the premises and had inducted ae has invested the District Magistrate with power on the existence of a vacancy to allot the premises to another person, but the Legislature has not made the determination of the preliminary state of facts by the District Magistrate conclusive. The jurisdiction to pass an order in ejectment only arises if there is a vacancy. The right of a tenant in possession is a valuable right and there is nothing in Section 7 or Section 7A which confers jurisdiction upon the District Magistrate to conclusively determine the facts on the existence of which his jurisdiction arises. Undoubtedly he has jurisdiction to make orders under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act, if there be a vacancy. But where there is a vacancy is jurisdictional fact which could not to be decided by him finally.By reaching an erroneous decision, he cannot clothe himself with jurisdiction which he does not possess. It is only when the order is with jurisdiction that the order is not liable to be challenged in a Civil Court by virtue of Section 16 of the Act.Act.8. In the present case the Civil Court has come to the conclusion that Gokal Chand had never vacated the shop and no vacancy had occurred. By wrongly deciding that Gokal Chand had vacated the shop, the District Magistrate had no power to pass orders directing forcible ejectment, and allotting the shop to another person.