Back
2001(8) Supreme 262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
M.B. Shah and R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Ouseph Mathai & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M.Abdul Khadir -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7519, 7522, 7524 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.5907, 5908 and 5910 of 2001)
Decided on 5-11-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Haris Beeran and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : B.V. Deepak, Advocates.
Held : In this case the court appears to have condoned the delay in depositing the appears of rent on the assumption that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was extension of appeal or revisional powers under the Act. The court impliedly held that as the OP No. 5970 of 1987 filed by the tenants was dismissed on 27th September, 1991, they had a statutory right to deposit the arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 11(2)(c) within a period of one month therefrom. Such is not the correct position of law. (Para 12)
The Act is intended to protect the interests of bonafide tenants in possession. The Act has but restrictions on the right of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of defaults in the payment of rent which are regulated by Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. A tenant is under an obligtion to pay or tender the rent in respect of the building under his occuption within 15 days after the expiry of time fided in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of such agreement by the last day of month next falling for which the rent is payable. None payment of rent, as per contract and statutory provisions, entitles the landlord to seek possession only after compliance of sending a registered notice to the tenants intimating the default. If after the receipt of such a notice a genuine tenant pays or tenders the rent together with interest at 6% per annum and postal charges, the right accrued to the landlord to get possession on this ground is defeated. Even after passing of the eviction order a further right is conferred upon tenant in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 11. It is only such tenant who defaults to pay the rent at all the three relevant times that the law requires him to be dispossessed. In the instant case the respondents-tenants are proved to have failed to pay the arrears of rent at all the three relevant times. Under facts and circumstances of the case, the tenants were not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Without referring to the facts of the case the High Court has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the order impugned and upholding the order passed by the appellate and revisional authority against the respondents-tenants. No costs. (Para 15 and 16)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 226, 227-Writ Jurisdiction in Rent Matters-Scope of interference-Whether rightly exercised in facts of this case? No.
Held : It is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact power under this Article cast a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and ribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party. (Para 4)
In the present appeals, the High Court appears to have assumed the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution without referring to the facts of the case warranting the exercise of such a jurisdiction. Extraordinary powers appears to have been exercised in a routine manner as if the power under Article 227 of the Constitution was the extension of powers conferred upon a litigant under a specified statute. Such an approach and interpretation is unwarranted. By adopting such an approach some High Courts have assumed jurisdiction even in matters to which the legislature had assigned finality under the specified statutes. Liberal assumption of powers without reference to the facts of the case and the corresponding hardship to be suffered by a litigant has unnecessarily burdened the courts resulting in accumulation of arrears adversely affecting the attention of the court to the deserving cases pending before it. Had the High Court noticed the facts of the present case, there was no necessity of assuming the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and passing the impugned order. (Paras 7 and 8)
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.-Leave granted.
2. Assuming jurisdiction and exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Kerala, vide the order impugned in these appeals set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority by which the order passed by the Rent Control court dismissing the respondents-tenants application under Se tion 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been confirmed. After holding that the deposit of the arrears of rent was in terms of Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, the High Court gave the respondents-tenants a right to exercise option under the proviso to Section 11(4) of the Act. The court held that the power to superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not an original proceeding but revisional jurisdiction akin to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, therefore, impliedly held that exercise of powers under Article 227 was the extension of the statutory powers conferred upon the appellate or revisional authority under a particular statute.
3. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been argued on behalf of the appellants-landlords that even though the High Court had the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, yet the same was required to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the subordinate Courts and tribunals are shown to have erroneously assumed jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and the order impugned showed some error of law apparent on the face of the record. Arriving at a finding which is alleged to be perverse or based on no material could not be a ground to exercise the power under the aforesaid Article.
4. It is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact power under this Article cast a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and ribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party.
5. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [1954 SCR 565] this Court held that power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised more sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This position of law was reiterated in Nagendra Nath Bose v. Commn. of Hills Division [1958 SCR 1240]. In Bhahutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta [AIR 1975 SC 1297] this Court held tht the High Court could not, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. After referring to the judgment of Lord Denning in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Exparte Shaw [1952 (1) All ER 122, 128] this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Gurnam [1986 (4) SCC 447] held:
"It is true that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court could go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
