Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Sameer Suresh Gupta Tr. Pa Holder
Versus
Rahul Kumar Agarwal
Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 2013
Decided On : 06-03-2013
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 – Rule 2 - Order 14 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24 - Pendency of suit – Quash order of Competent Authority - During pendency of suit appellant filed an application Section Act and prayed that respondent may be directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises - Respondent filed written statement to contest application - He also applied for stay of proceedings of application filed by appellant - His prayer was declined by Competent Authority vide order - Writ Petition filed by respondent for quashing order of Competent Authority was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court vide – Held, Object of superintendence both administrative and judicial is to maintain efficiency smooth and orderly functioning of entire machinery justice in such way as it does not bring it into any disrepute - Power of interference this article is to be kept minimum to ensure that wheel of justice does not come to halt and fountain justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in functioning of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court - This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in administration of justice in larger public interest whereas Article is meant for protection of individual grievance - Therefore power may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above - By applying principles number enunciated in facts of this case court hold that Single Judge was not at all justified in interfering with order passed by Competent Authority declining to frame preliminary issue - Course adopted by Competent Authority was consistent with object underlying amendment made by Parliament in Code of Civil Procedure expeditious disposal of civil cases without interference by higher superior Courts at interlocutory stages of cases - Appeal allowed
Key Points: - The Court held that in summary proceedings, framing and deciding a preliminary issue is not necessary, and the Competent Authority’s approach aligned with the aim of expeditious disposal. (!) - The High Court’s interference under Article 227 should be sparing and is limited to keeping tribunals within their jurisdiction, not substituting its own decision; scope is to correct gross errors or grave injustice. (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) - The licensing agreement and its terms can be conclusive evidence under the relevant provisions, affecting jurisdiction to decide Section 24 applications. (!) (!) - The High Court cannot substitute its own decision on interlocutory matters unless there is patent perversity or grave injustice; the appellate body should direct disposal within a timeframe. (!) (!) - The decision of the Competent Authority to decline to frame a preliminary issue was upheld, and the matter was remanded to be disposed of promptly. (!) (!)
Judgment :
Leave granted.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, whereby he allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the Competent Authority, Pune and dismissed Application No. 21 of 2007 filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the Act’). The respondent filed a suit for grant of a declaration that he is a tenant of the suit premises, i.e., Row House No. C-04, Kubera Garden, Salunkhe Vihar, Pune and that Leave and Licence Agreement dated 30.7.2003 is null and void.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act and prayed that the respondent may be directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The respondent filed written statement to contest the application. He also applied under Section 10, CPC for stay of the proceedings of the application filed by the appellant. His prayer was declined by the Competent Authority vide order dated 2.11.2007. Writ Petition No. 9160/2007 filed by the respondent for quashing the order of the Competent Authority was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 12.2.2008.
3. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed an application for framing a preliminary issue whether the Competent Authority has the jurisdiction to decide the application filed under Section 24 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the Competent Authority vide order dated 7.5.2008 by recording the following observations:
“11. In the case on hand, the applicant has come with the case that the relationship between the parties is of licensor and licensee, on the basis of leave and licence agreement between the parties dated 30.7.2003. While arguing the matter, the learned advocate for the opponent pointed out that by way of skillful drafting the applicant has tried to bring the application (Exh.l), within the scope of MRC Act, 1999. The purpose for giving the premises to the opponent is not specified in the pleading and hence, we are required to go by the contents of the agreement. It is pertinent to note that the opponent has not admitted the contents of the agreement anywhere in the application (Exh.29). As against this, the opponent has disputed the relationship between the parties.
12. It means that for recording the finding about the purpose of the transaction involving the suit premises, the evidence is to be recorded. It means that the purpose for which the suit premises was given, constitutes the factual aspect of the matter. The finding against this factual aspect cannot be recorded without recording the evidence in the matter.
17. The point regarding framing of preliminary issue of jurisdiction was under the consideration of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition bearing No. 5479 between the parties - Satpal Singh Yadav v. Pramod Shinde (unreported) while deciding this point, the observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court which serve as guidelines to the Competent Authority while dealing with the proceedings covered by the special procedure. With due respect to Hon’ble Bombay High Court, I hereby reproduce the observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court on para 7 of that judgment :
‘(7) The Competent Authority is also expected to bear in mind that each order of Competent Authority is open for challenge their Article 227 of the Constitution of India more than one order can give rise to more than one petition. The litigants who are likely to be benefited are out to test each and every order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to protract the litigation. Thus consideration the litigating attitude of the litigants, the competent authority is expected to pass minimum orders adjudicating rights of the rival parties. This can only be avoided, if all the issues are tried together and judgment is pronounced on all the
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
