1. Dispute between parties relating to fixation of rent and quantum of arrears arising from a contract. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I, D.M. Dharmadhikari, and Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ.
B.L. CHAKRABORTY @ BINODE LAL CHAKRABORTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 2005 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3294 of 2004)
Decided on : 07-03-2005
The court held that to ensure justice and finality in long-pending disputes involving a 'State' entity under Article 12, the High Court may hear contractual disputes on merits, using Commissioners or subordinate courts to record necessary evidence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 - Fixation of rent and quantum of arrears - Contractual dispute - Writ jurisdiction - To ensure the ends of justice and bring finality to a long-pending dispute, a matter involving an entity that is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 may be heard and determined on merits by the High Court, notwithstanding the technicality of whether a dispute originating from a contract can be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Where evidence is required to be adduced, the High Court may record the same by appointing a Commissioner or directing subordinate courts or authorities to record evidence and certify findings. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought relief regarding the fixation of rent and the quantum of arrears. The High Court had refused to provide relief, observing that the dispute arose out of a contract and required evidence to settle disputed questions of fact. This decision was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The matter is remitted to the High Court for hearing and decision on merits. An interim payment is directed to be paid by the respondent agency to the appellant, which shall be available for adjustment and appropriation consistently with the final order of the High Court.
Issues: Whether a long-pending contractual dispute involving an entity defined as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution should be decided on merits by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that to provide a final determination to a prolonged dispute, the High Court can decide contractual matters on merits, and may utilize subordinate authorities or Commissioners to record necessary evidence if required.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought relief in writ jurisdiction; High Court refused citing contractual nature and need for evidence. (Para 2 )
3. Respondent is 'State' under Article 12; ends of justice demand remittal for hearing on merits despite contractual dispute. (Para 3 )
4. High Court may entertain contractual dispute against 'State' entity in writ jurisdiction and appoint commissioner to record evidence. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgments set aside; matter remitted to High Court for hearing on merits with interim payment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction appoint a commissioner to record evidence in a contractual dispute involving a 'State' entity?
Yes, the High Court may appoint a commissioner or direct subordinate courts to record evidence and certify findings for final decision. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I.
Leave granted.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to fixation of rent and consequently the quantum of arrears. Whether the arrears are liable to be paid with interest is also a question which incidentally arises. When the dispute came up before the learned Single Judge hearing the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the learned Single Judge formed an opinion that the dispute arose out of a contract and also required evidence for settling the disputed questions of fact and, therefore, refused to allow any relief to the appellant. The order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Division Bench. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the ends of justice demand the matter being remitted to the learned Single Judge of the High Court for hearing and decision on merits. It is not disputed that respondent No. 2- National Textile Corporation is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Without going into the technicality whether a dispute originating from a contract can be heard and decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction, primarily with a view to put an end to a long pending dispute we deem it proper that the matter is heard and determined finally by the High Court. If the learned Judge of the High Court feels that any evidence is required to be adduced, then the High Court may have the same recorded by appointing either a Commissioner or by directing any of the courts or authorities subordinate to the High Court to record the evidence along with its finding and certify the same to the High Court which will take the decision.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that huge arrears have accumulated and some payment ought to be made to the appellant by way of interim payment. We allow the appellant liberty of making that prayer before the High Court. In the meantime, it is directed that the amount of Rs. 1,67,754.72p. as per calculation contained in the chart submitted by the appellant in this Court titled as 'Summary of the Payment and Arrears of Rent Unpaid Upto 30.06.2004' shall be paid by respondent No. 2 to the appellant within a period of six weeks from today. This payment shall be treated as an interim payment, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party, and shall be available for adjustment and appropriation consistently with the final order made by the High Court.
5. The judgment dated 27.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment dated 29.8.2003 of the Division Bench are both set aside. The appeal stands allowed in the terms above-stated.
6. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear in the High Court on 4th April, 2005.
