1. Eviction petition for reconstruction under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act — Trial court dismissal — High Court reversal — Review application dismissed. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1184
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu
Mahakali Engineering Corporation
Versus
R.C.Subramanyam
Case No. : 5897 , 5898 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/11/99
A party must be granted a fair opportunity to be heard. If a court records that parties were heard but the record suggests otherwise, a review application should be allowed to ensure the matter is decided on merits, particularly in eviction proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Rent Control Act - Section 21(1)(f) - Eviction petition - Review application - Absence of counsel - Natural justice - High Court set aside trial court's order dismissing eviction petition - Order stated counsel for parties were heard, but cause title did not list counsel for respondent - Review application dismissed in limine - High Court ought to have allowed review and heard matter on merits to provide opportunity to defend. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
An eviction petition was filed on the grounds of reconstruction and alterations. The trial court dismissed the petition. In a revision petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and ordered eviction. A review application was filed by the tenant alleging that their counsel was not present during the hearing, despite the court's order stating otherwise. The High Court dismissed the review application in limine.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim regarding the absence of the tenant's counsel was not without basis, as the High Court's order did not list the tenant's counsel nor mention that the tenant was present in person.
Issues: Whether the High Court should have allowed a review application to ensure the tenant was heard on merits when the record indicated a lack of representation despite the order stating counsel had been heard.
Ratio Decidendi: When a court reverses a lower court's decision to dismiss an eviction petition, it must ensure the opposing party has a fair opportunity to defend the case. If there is a reasonable basis to believe a party was not represented, the court should allow a review to hear the matter on merits.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that the High Court's order was erroneous as counsel was not present during the hearing, necessitating a review on merits. (Para 3 )
3. The absence of the respondent's counsel's name in the order suggests the appellant was not heard, warranting a review when the trial court's dismissal was set aside. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. When a court sets aside an order dismissing a petition, it should allow a review if there is a basis to believe a party was not heard. (Para 6 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court orders set aside — Revision petition restored for disposal on merits. (Para 7 )
6. When should a court allow a review application regarding the absence of counsel?
A court should allow a review application and hear the matter on merits if there is a reasonable basis to believe a party was not represented during the hearing, especially when the court is setting aside an order that had previously dismissed the petition. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. How can the absence of a party's representation be inferred from a court order?
The absence of a party's counsel's name in the cause title of the order, combined with no mention of the party appearing in person, can serve as a basis to conclude that the party was not present during the hearing. (Para 5 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE respondent had filed in 1989 an eviction petition inter alia on the ground that the property had to be reconstructed. It was also alleged that the tenant had made certain alterations.
(3) THE trial court dismissed the said petition and the respondent filed a revision before the High Court. On 14-7-1998, a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the trial court and ordered eviction of the appellant herein under Section 21 (1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It appears that an application for review was filed in which it was stated that counsel for the appellant herein was not present at the time when the High Court allowed the revision petition and the order under review which had stated that the counsel for the parties had been heard was erroneous. The High Court dismissed the application for review in limine. Hence these appeals by special leave.
(4) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(5) IT appears to us that the averment made in the review application that no one was present on behalf of the appellant at the time when the revision was taken up for hearing, was not without any basis. The cause title in the order passed in revision indicates the name of the counsel for the petitioner before the High Court but does not indicate the name of any counsel for the respondent before the High Court, nor is there any mention that any of the respondents before the High Court was present in person.
(6) CONSIDERING the fact that the High Court was setting aside an order whereby the eviction petition had been dismissed, the High Court in our opinion ought to have allowed the application for review and heard the matter on merits. We do not intend to express any opinion on the merits of the case but we are clearly of the opinion that on the facts as stated hereinabove, the High Court should have given an opportunity to the appellant herein to defend the civil revision which had been filed by the landlord.
(7) FOR the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed, orders of the High Court are set aside and HRRP No. 361 of 1994 is restored on the file of the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the said petition at an early date, if possible within six months.
