AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manisana, J.—These 5 (five) petitions u/s 115, CPC namely, Civil Revision Nos. 12 to 16 of 1980, can be disposed of by common judgment as they are from a common order passed by the Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur rejecting the applications for stay of Title Suit No. 53 of 1976, Title Suit No. 54 of 1976. Title Suit No. 55 of 1976, Title Suit No. 83 of 1976 and Title Suit No. 11 of 1977.
The brief facts for disposal of these petitions may briefly be stated M/s. Dugar properties and Investment Companies, a registered partnership firm (which I shall refer to as the ''firm''), instituted the above-mentioned suits against the Defendants for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The firm brought the suits gating that the firm purchased the suit premises situated in Tezpur Town from one Jyotish Chandra Das and that the firm is Land-Lord and the Defendants are tenants. The Defendants in each of the suits applied to the Court of the Munsiff at Tezpur for stay of the suits u/s 10, CPC on the ground that previously instituted Title Suit No. 49 of 1973 in the Court of Second Subordinate Judge at Howrah by one Pritwish Chandra Das against Jyotish Chandra younger brother of Pritwish was pending. One of the reliefs claimed in Title Suit No. 49 of 1973 is that the firm and Jyotish in respect of the suit premises is illegal. Learned Munsiff rejected the applications u/s 10, CPC on (sic)0-9-1979 by a common order. Hence, these petitions.
The only question which arises for consideration is whether the suits pending before the Munsiff at Tezpur shall be stayed u/s 10, CPC pending Title Suit No. 49 of 1973 in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge at Howrah. Section 10, CPC runs:
No Court shall proceed with; the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.
(emphasis added)
u/s 10, one of the essentials for attracting application of Section 10 is that the Court in which previously instituted suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.
Question then is- Whether the Second Subordinate Judge at Howrah can make an order for eviction of a tenant from the suit premises situate in Tezpur Town. The answer is. ''no''. The reasons are as follows. The suits pending before the Munsiff at Tezpur are, admittedly, governed by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, for short the ''Act''. The Court which can make order for the eviction of a tenant is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. Section (2) reads;
Court� means the Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction in the area in which a house is situated which would be competent to pass a decree for the eviction of a tenant from that house.
u/s 2(a), a suit for eviction of a tenant can be tried only by a Court within whose jurisdiction the house from which a tenant is to be evicted, is situate. But the suit premises are not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Court at Howrah as the suit premises situate in Tezpur Town and not in Howrah. Therefore, a Court at Howrah is not a Court, as defined u/s 2(a) of the Act, and as such, it has no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed in the suits pending before the Munsiff at Tezpur. In this view of the matter, Section 10, CPC is not attracted in the present case. I am deciding this question on the assumption that the proceedings pending before the Court of Munsiff at Tezpur are suits.
Other contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners have not been dealt with in view of the above conclusion. However, it is made clear that the findings of the learned Munsiff shall in no way prejudice the parties.
In the result, the petitions are dismissed. No costs.