Central Bank of India Vs. L. Narendrapal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the suit being one for enhancement of rent on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate and the court below having come to the finding that the reasonable rent was not inadequate it was clearly its duty to dismiss the suit and it had no jurisdiction to decree it.orderseth, j.1. this is a defendant's application arising out of a suit under section 5 (4), u. p. temporary control of rent and eviction act, iii [3] of 1947. the premises were let to the defendant bank by a registered lease some time in the year 1943 at a rent of rs. 100 per month. the plaintiff claimed that the municipal assessment of the premises, on the relevant date in the year 1942, was rs. 106-1-0 and that the reasonable rent therefore came to an amount in the neighbourhood of rs. 133. he alleged that even this was an inadequate rent and brought a suit under section 6 of the act for fixation of the rent at the rate of rs. 200 a month. the suit was thus in effect a suit for enhancement on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate. it may be pointed out that before the institution of the suit the plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant enhancing rent to rs. 200.2. the court below has fixed the rent at rs. 132-9-s per month, which is .the reasonable rent according to the act. thus the court below has come to a finding that the reasonable rent is neither inadequate nor excessive. the suit being one for enhancement of rent on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate and the court below having come to the finding that the reasonable rent was not inadequate it was clearly its duty to dismiss the suit and it had no jurisdiction to decree it.3. enhancement' upto the extent of reasonable rent can be made by the landlord himself without any intervention of the court. the intervention of the court is sought for only when it is claimed that the reasonable rent was either excessive or inadequate. thus the court obtains jurisdiction to fix rent only if it finds that the reasonable rent is excessive or inadequate. it has no jurisdiction to fix the rent if the reasonable rent is found neither to be excessive nor to be inadequate. i thus find that the order of the court below is an order without jurisdiction.4. this application in revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. in the circumstances of the case i direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Seth, J.

1. This is a defendant's application arising out of a suit under Section 5 (4), U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947. The premises were let to the defendant Bank by a registered lease some time in the year 1943 at a rent of Rs. 100 per month. The plaintiff claimed that the municipal assessment of the premises, on the relevant date in the year 1942, was Rs. 106-1-0 and that the reasonable rent therefore came to an amount in the neighbourhood of RS. 133. He alleged that even this was an inadequate rent and brought a suit under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of the rent at the rate of Rs. 200 a month. The suit was thus in effect a suit for enhancement on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate. It may be pointed out that before the institution of the suit the plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant enhancing rent to Rs. 200.

2. The Court below has fixed the rent at Rs. 132-9-S per month, which is .the reasonable rent according to the Act. Thus the Court below has come to a finding that the reasonable rent is neither inadequate nor excessive. The suit being one for enhancement of rent on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate and the Court below having come to the finding that the reasonable rent was not inadequate it was clearly its duty to dismiss the suit and it had no jurisdiction to decree it.

3. Enhancement' upto the extent of reasonable rent can be made by the landlord himself without any intervention of the Court. The intervention of the Court is sought for only when it is claimed that the reasonable rent was either excessive or inadequate. Thus the Court obtains jurisdiction to fix rent only if it finds that the reasonable rent is excessive or inadequate. It has no jurisdiction to fix the rent if the reasonable rent is found neither to be excessive nor to be inadequate. I thus find that the order of the Court below is an order without jurisdiction.

4. This application in revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs.