Back
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.)
MANOMATI CHETHIA AND OTHERS
Versus
NAREN PATHAK AND OTHERS Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1917 of 1999, decided on November 22,2001
Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act - Remand to High Court - The court found that the issues between the parties had not received proper attention and that the questions of law framed by the High Court did not specifically cover the substantial questions of law on which the parties were litigating, leading to a failure of justice. The matter was remanded for hearing afresh after framing substantial questions of law.
Fact of the Case:
The matter had come up to the Court for the second time. The respondent landlords initiated proceedings for ejectment under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. The High Court allowed the appeal of the landlords, directing the tenant to be evicted. This decision was set aside by the Supreme Court in a previous appeal, and the matter was sent back for decision on other points. The High Court again allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgment of the first appellate court and restoring the judgment of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the issues between the parties had not received proper attention and that the questions of law framed by the High Court did not specifically cover the substantial questions of law on which the parties were litigating, leading to a failure of justice. The matter was remanded for hearing afresh after framing substantial questions of law.
Issues: The issues arose from the proceedings for ejectment initiated by the respondent landlords under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. The High Court's failure to address all the issues and substantial questions of law led to the remand of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision to remand the matter was based on the finding that the High Court had not adequately addressed the issues and substantial questions of law, resulting in a failure of justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the file of the High Court for hearing afresh after framing substantial questions of law. The High Court was directed to afford the parties an opportunity to suggest framing such questions of law and to dispose of the appeal afresh, recording specific findings on the substantial questions of law framed by it. The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the questions arising for decision in the appeal, leaving the High Court to form its own opinion.
ORDER
1. Though the matter has come up to this Court for the second time, yet, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find yet another remand to the High Court unavoidably warranted. It is not disputed that the land forming the subject-matter of these proceedings is governed by the provisions of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act" for short). The respondent landlords initiated proceedings for ejectment which travelled up to the High Court. By order dated 31-3-1997, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the landlords and directed the tenant to be evicted. The tenant preferred an appeal by special leave, which was disposed of by order dated 12-1-1998 by this Court. This Court held that inasmuch as the tenancy is governed by special enactment,notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not required to be served before initiating the proceedings for ejectment. Having decided that controversy, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and sent it back for decision on other points. This time again, the High Court has allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court, restoring the judgment of the trial court.
2. Having perused the judgment of the High Court dated 5-5-1998, we are satisfied that all the issues arising for decision between the parties have not received the attention of the High Court and dealt with and disposed of iI1 the impugned judgment. Even the questions of law framed by the High Court vide para 5 of its impugned judgment do not specifically cover and set out those substantial questions of law on which the parties are litigating and this has occasionedfailure of justice.
3. We deem it proper to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the matter for hearing afresh, after framing such substantial questions of law as do arise in the case.
4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 5-5-1998 is set aside. Second Appeal No. 56 of 1989 shall stand stored to the file of the High Court. The High Court shall afford the parties opportunity of suggesting for framing such questions of law as arise in the in their respective submissions. The High Court shall frame the questions consistently with Section 100 CPC and thereafter dispose of the peal afresh, recording specific findings on the substantial questions of law framed by it.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
6. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion onmerits of any of the questions arising for decision in the appeal and the high Court shall be at liberty to form its own opinion thereon while decidingappeal.
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
