Ponnurangam vs Chairman, Slum Clearance Board of Tamil Nadu, Madras

The second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5167 of 1977, on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration that he is not liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the basis of the notice issued by

the respondent Slum Clearance Board of Tamil Nadu represented by its Chairman.

It is averred in the, plaint that the plaintiff had been occupying the scheduled premises from the year 1963, and thereafter, on the application filed

by him, the same was assigned in his favour. He is also paying the hire purchase instalments regularly. It is said that the defendant issued a notice on

17-11-1976 stating that he had obtained the allotment by making false representations and that he has got other buildings of his own which

disentitles him from getting any allotment. Since the allotment was obtained fraudulently, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. It is also

averred that when the plainl iff issued the notice, he gave an explanation. But, in spite of the same, the defendant has threatened to dispossess him

from the property.

In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that when the allotment was made in favour of the plaintiff, they were not aware

that the plaintiff was in possession of other buildings within the City of Madras which disentitles him from getting allotment. It is further said that the

allotment was made only on the representation made by the respondent that he has no building of his own, nor has he got any share in any building,

whether owned by his father or predecessor. It was on the basis of a declaration which was in the nature of an affidavit, the allotment was made. It

is further contended by the Board that the defendant is in possession of an Ambassador car. He has got other vehicles. He has also got other

properties and he is very rich. It is said that the allotment will be made only in case the plaintiff is having a monthly income of Rs. 200/- or less.

Even the monthly income at the time of allotment was much more than what he represented. The parties went on trial, and the trial Court came to

the conclusion that the plaintiff suppressed materials and obtained allotment fraudulently. It also held that the plaintiff is in possession of other

buildings in his name and that his income would far exceed Rs. 200/- per mensem. The suit was dismissed. Against that'' the plaintiff preferred an

appeal before the lower appellate Court as A.S. No. 221 of 1981, on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The lower

appellate Court also held that there was suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. Even though the appellate Court found that there was no

evidence regarding possession of other buildings and other income, it found that the plaintiff was having at least a share in a building which originally

belonged to his father. That fact was purposely suppressed by the plaintiff at the time when he obtained the allotment. The lower appellate Court

also found that the various columns in the application for allotment must have been filled up by the appellant in good faith, but it was not done so.

Consequently the first appeal was dismissed. It is against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below, this second appeal is filed.

At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration :

1) Is not the Order Ex.A-1 liable to be set aside when the hire purchase agreement is to be treated as a continuation of the tenancy agreement?

2) Is the suit barred under S. 65 of the Slum Clearance Board Act when the Order itself is illegal and the Civil Court is competent to question the

validity of the Board''s order? And

3) Is the Order Ex.A-l enforceable when the appellant is still receiving money under hire purchase agreement now?

According to me, none of these questions of law arises for consideration when once it is found that the plaintiff has obtained the allotment

fraudulently. ''Fraud'' vitiates every act and the persons who is a party to the fraud is not entitled to any relief from Court. In the latest decision of

the Supreme Court reported in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, , their Lordships have said

thus (para 8 of AIR):

A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to

gain by another''s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents

executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be

guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.

Their Lordships, in paragraphs (of SCC) : (Para 7 of AIR) of ihe said judgment, have further stated thus:--

... Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient

lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely: We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach

the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

In this case, the respondent is a public body and its duty is to allot buildings to the depressed and poorer sections of the community. Who are

the poorer sections are best known to the applicants themselves rather than to the persons who are legally authorised to allot them. For, the

allotment is made only on the basis of various declarations made in the application. We find that the application is in the nature of a declaration that

the statements given by way of reply to various columns in the application are true. There is also a declaration that in case if any one of the

statements is false, the respondent-Board has the right to cancel the allotment. Once it is found that the allotment was obtained by the plaintiff by

adopting illegal methods or fraudulent means, as a public body, which is a Trustee for the Society, the respondent is bound to cancel the same.

There is a statutory duty on its part to cancel the allotment. According to me, the notice issued by the respondent is legally valid and the plaintiff has

no legal right to approach this Court either for a declaration or for a consequential relief against the notice.

Even though the said finding is sufficient to dismiss the second appeal, since substantial questions of law have been raised by this Court, I answer

the same as follows:--

It is contended that the plaintiff is continuing to pay the instalments under hire purchase agreement and that will be sufficient to set aside the notice.

It is also contended that when the respondent is receiving money under the hire purchase agreement, they have no right to issue Ex. A-1 notice. I

do not think that these contentions can be put forward by the plaintiff in longer. The suit is to set aside Ex.A-1, which cancels the allotment order.

The hire purchase instalments are being paid by Ihe plaintiff on the basis of allotment made pursuant to the representations made by the plaintiff.

After filing the suit and after having obtained interim orders, he cannot put forward a contention before this Court that because the respondent is

receiving the hire purchase instalments, they cannot issue Ex.A-1 notice. Even if it is contended that the occupation by the plaintiff is in continuation

of the earlier tenancy agreement, when the application was made, that was not on the basis of any tenancy right, but on the basis that he did not

possess any building of his own or that he was no! a co-owner in respect of any building. The payment made under the hire purchase agreement

has nothing to dp with the issue of Ex.A-1 notice.

It is further contended that the finding of the Court''s below that these Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the issue, requires interference.

The Statute which governs the parties is Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act (Act 2 of 1971). Section 65 of that Act deals with bar of

jurisdiction of Civil Court. It reads thus:-

-

Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.-

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civit Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Government are, or the

prescribed authority is empowered by or under this Act, to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect

of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

It is not disputed by the plaintiff that against the Order of the Board (Ex. A-1), he moved an appeal before the Government, but he was not in a

position to submit before this Court as to the development that had taken place consequent to the filing of the appeal. The appeal so filed was in

accordance with the provisions of the said Act, i.e., appeal to Government as Appellate Authority, to interfere with the order passed by the

authorities under the Act. It was a statutory appeal, and it gives a conclusiveness to the decision. It was pending disposal of that appeal, the suit

was filed. In view of S. 65 of the said Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act, there is express bar of jurisdiction of this Court.

Even if there is an express bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court, we can consider the issue in case the plaintiff has a case that the principle of natural

justice has been violated or that the procedure prescribed by that Act has not been followed. No such argument was put forward, nor was any

evidence adduced to support that. The suit is misconceived. As found by the Courts below, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction.

All the substantial questions of law raised in this second appeal are found against the appellant.

In the result, I confirm the decisions of the Courts below, and dismiss the second appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.