Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1233
2009(5) Supreme 414
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and R.M.Lodha, JJ.
Dinkar Sridhar Tamhankar — Appellant
versus
Bhalchandra Sadashiv Kavadi — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4353 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP) No. 202 of 2009]
Decided on : 14-07-2009
For the Appellant :Vinay Navare, MS. Abha R. Sharma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is not permissible for High Court to entertain review application and modify decree for eviction passed on ground of bona fide requirement if there is no error apparent on the face of the record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1of the CPC is available to the tenant to file such review petition.
Headnote:Rent and Eviction Laws – Eviction decree on ground of bona fide requirement passed in favour of landlord-appellant by Small Causes Court – Revision – High Court affirmed order passed by Small Causes Court – Review application thereagainst – Allowed by High Court – Appeal – Held High Court was not justified in interfering with concurrent orders of Courts below in exercise of its power under Article 227 of Constitution – No dispute that decree for eviction on ground of bona fide requirement was passed in favour of the landlord-appellant by Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by High Court in revision – Admittedly an undertaking was filed by respondent unequivocally binding himself to vacate premises in question – Such being the position, it was not permissible for High Court to entertain review application and modify decree for eviction passed on ground of bona fide requirement – Apart from that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1of the CPC was available to the tenant to file such review petition – That being the position, impugned order set aside and order passed by High Court in revision restored – Appeal allowed. (Paras 5 to 9)
Facts of the Case
1. Eviction decree on ground of bona fide requirement was passed herein in the instant case in favour of landlord-appellant by Small Causes Court. In Revision, High Court affirmed order passed by Small Causes Court. Review application thereagainst was allowed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
There was no dispute that decree for eviction on ground of bona fide requirement was passed in favour of the landlord-appellant by Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by High Court in revision. Admittedly an undertaking was filed by respondent unequivocally binding himself to vacate premises in question . Such being the position, it was not permissible for High Court to entertain review application and modify decree for eviction passed on ground of bona fide requirement. Apart from that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC was available to the tenant to file such review petition. That being the position, impugned order was set aside and order passed by High Court in revision was restored. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. In spite of due service of notice on the respondent, the respondent has failed to appear before us for the purpose of contesting the appeal.
3. By the impugned order, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed a review application and modified the decree for possession, which was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord-appellant by the Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision.
4. Feeling aggrieved by this order allowing the application for review, a Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent orders of the Courts below in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. It is not in dispute that the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement was passed in favour of the landlord-appellant by the Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision. It is an admitted fact that an undertaking was filed by the respondent unequivocally binding himself to vacate the premises in question on or before 31st of December, 2008.
7. Such being the position, it was not permissible for the High Court to entertain the review application and modify the decree for eviction passed on the ground of bona fide requirement as we find that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC was available to the tenant to file such review petition.
8. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order passed by the High Court in revision, which affirmed the order of the Small Causes Court, Pune directing eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
***********
