D. L. MEHTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 2. 5. 1986, passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City. In this revision petition learned Addl. M. J. M. Hindaun City, has issued a mandatory injunction to restore the connection of electricity of both the shops. Further prohibitory injunction has also been issued against the defendant that they will not disturb the supply of electricity.
(2.) PLAINTIFF-non-petitionsr instituted a suit against the defendant petitioner on the ground that the defendant has dis-connected the electricity connection without following the due process of law. It was also contended by the plaintiff that the defendant has no right to take the law in his hand. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executive Magistrate who is having jurisdiction under S. 12 of the Premises and Rent Control Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"), can only exercise his powers. He has invited my attention to clause (3) of S. 12 of the Act, which reads as under:- Clause (3) of S. 12:- "where on an application from a tenant, it appears to the Magistrate that the landlord has contravened the provisions of subsection (1), the Magistrate shall, 'after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and on such conditions as he may think fit to impose on either party, by an order direct the landlord within a reasonable time to-be fixed by him, to restore the amenities cut off or withheld and may, in any case, award to the tenant, by way of costs, or damages or both, such sum of money, not exceeding five hundred rupees, as he may consider reasonable in the circumstances of the case. " He submits that the tenant has right to move before the learned Magistrate and make the submissions that the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-section (1), the Magistrate shall after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and on such conditions as he may think fit to impose on either party by an order direct the landlord to restore the amenities cut-off or withheld. Mr. Joshi has invited my attention to Section 3 of the Act, and submitted that Magistrate means the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate, having jurisdiction over and sitting at the place as the State Government may empower in this behalf. Sub-section (3) of S. 12, comes into operation only when the landlord has contravened the provisions of Sub-section (1 ). This section does not take away the powers of the Civil Court in dealing with such cases where the landlord without following the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) has disconnected the supply of electricity to the tenant. Sub-section (1) of Section 12, provides that no land-lord shall, without the previous permission of the Magistrate cut off or withhold the amenities enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. It will not be out of place here to mention that the law does not prohibit the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Civil Court is not divested with its powers under ordinary law. There may be a concurrent jurisdiction and the party may have a right to choose the forum in such circum-stances, the party can move to the Civil Court if he so chooses. It will not be out of place here to mention that like order 39 rule 1 and 2, there is no wide provision in S. 12 of the Act, for granting-interim relief to the sufferer. Sub-section (4) of-course provides that if the Magistrate, on perusal of the application and affidavit finds that there is a prima-facie case he may pass an interim order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately pending in inquiry referred to in that sub-section. Clause (4) of S. 12, of the Act, cannot be equated with the wider scope of O. 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. it. is an admitted position in this case that the landlord has not moved under sub-section (1) of S. 12 of the Act. to the Magistrate and he has not obtained any permission to cut or withheld the amenities of electricity enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. This is not a question only of a violation of contractual obligation but it is a question of flouting the law and taking the law in once own hand. The Law provides that the landlord shall not cut off any amenities including the amenities of supply of electricity without seeking prior permission of the Magistrate. It is clear that the Gram Panchayat has taken the law in its own hand. The Gram Panchayat, had a right to move under clause (l) of S. 12 of the Act, to the Magistrate and would have obtained the permission to cut off the amenities of light and thereafter they could have done according to the directions given by the Magistrate. The landlord had no jurisdiction to cut off the supply of the electricity without prior permission of the Magistrate and if contravened and taken the law in its own hand it give the civil cause of action to the tenant independently of the provisions of the Premises and Rent Control Act, 1959. The law does not prohibit the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when the civil cause of action arises either directly or by implication them the Civil Court cannot be ousted from its jurisdiction. It will not be out of place here to mention that sometimes the executive may act in a way for executive reasons. The legislature in its wisdom considered it proper not to prohibit the judiciary from exercising its civil jurisdiction in a civil cause of action so that there may not be any complaint in such a beneficial legislation that the executive is not moving for the executive reasons. Thus, I hold that there is a concurrent jurisdiction and the Civil Court has not been ousted and the Civil Court has power to issue injunction and the suit also lies in the Civil Court also and the Civil Court can exercise the powers vested under O. 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with S. 151 of the C. P. C. can pass necessary order which may be just and proper and equitable to the circumstances available. I do not find any illegality in the order of the Court below. However, it is observed that the temporary injunction passed by the civil court will not come in to the way of the petitioner if he moves to the Magistrate under clause (1) of S. 12 of the Act, on the ground of default in the matter of payment. It is further observed that if the permission is granted then he can move to the Civil Court for modification of the stay order in accordance with the law.
(3.) IN the result, the revision petition is disposed-of accordingly. .;