Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has ruled that a civil court cannot order civic authorities to provide alternative accommodation to tenants of a building that is to be razed for a road-widening project under a town planning scheme.HC said that a civil court cannot issue such directions on the basis of humanitarian considerations that eviction would cause hardship merely because the litigants occupied the premises for a long period.The case involved tenants of one Jariwala Chawl in Asarwa, who had been living there for over 60 years. They were opposing the eviction by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in 1990s to implement its TP scheme. They approached the civil court in 1997 alleging breach of notice requirements under Rules 21(3) and 21(4) of the Bombay Town Planning and Urban Development Rules.A city civil court in 2002 ordered AMC to provide suitable accommodation consisting of an equal portion of land and to protect their possession until they are given alternative housing.AMC challenged this decree in HC in 2004, not only questioning the civil court’s jurisdiction but also citing that the civil court’s order was contrary to an earlier HC order by which the tenants were directed to vacate their houses by Aug 31, 2003.After the hearing, Justice J C Doshi set aside the civil court’s decree, stating that its reliance on Rule 21(3) and 21(4) was legally unsustainable and contrary to earlier proceedings in the same litigation.On the civil court’s order for providing alternative accommodation, HC said, “As a general rule, the civil court does not possess the jurisdiction to direct a defendant, including the govt or statutory authority or a municipal corporation to provide alternative accommodation merely on equitable or humanitarian consideration. Such a direction can be issued only when there is a legal right vested with the plaintiff and corresponding legal obligation on the defendant, either arising from statute, contract, policy or an enforceable promise.”Besides, Justice Doshi criticised the lower court for issuing decree in defiance of the HC order, which he found “in complete judicial impropriety, indecorum”. The court order read, “The entire proceedings are no less than contemptuous proceedings. These proceedings and conduction thereof is hostile to the order passed by the high court in the appeal from order…Hence, attempt and approach of both, city civil court & the plaintiff is deprecated, denounced and criticized.”
