An appellate court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal summarily if it finds that it does not raise any seriously arguable points.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 13(1)(G) AND 13-A2 - EVICTION SUIT - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPEAL - CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 13-A2 - PROOF AND VALIDITY - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a public limited company and its Managing Director, were tenants in a flat owned by the plaintiff and her mother. The plaintiff, an Assistant Pathologist at Tata Memorial Centre, filed an eviction suit against the petitioners on two grounds under sections 13(1)(g) and 13-A2 of the Bombay Rent Act (the Act). The trial court and the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court decreed the suit on both grounds. The petitioners challenged the decision in a writ petition before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the appellate bench did not err in summarily dismissing the appeal, as it had recorded a speaking order dealing with each and every point raised by the petitioners. The Court found that the plaintiff had proved her claim under section 13(1)(g) of the Act, as she reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for occupation by herself and her family. The Court also upheld the finding of the lower courts that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff by declining her possession than to the petitioners if possession was decreed. Regarding the eviction under section 13-A2, the Court held that the Certificate granted to the plaintiff was duly proved and was not vitiated on any ground. The Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the Certificate was required to be produced at the date of hearing of the suit, as it was sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the contents of the Certificate before the institution of the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate bench erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without admitting it and issuing notice to the other side? 2. Whether the plaintiff had proved her claim under section 13(1)(g) of the Act? 3. Whether the Certificate granted under section 13-A2 was duly proved and valid? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to eviction under section 13-A2 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the appellate bench did not err in summarily dismissing the appeal, as it had recorded a speaking order dealing with each and every point raised by the petitioners. The Court observed that it is not necessary to admit every appeal raising triable issues, and that the appellate court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal summarily if it finds that it does not raise any seriously arguable points. 2. The Court found that the plaintiff had proved her claim under section 13(1)(g) of the Act, as she reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for occupation by herself and her family. The Court considered the plaintiff's circumstances, including her job, her marriage, and the lack of suitable alternative accommodation, and found that she had established a genuine need for the premises. 3. The Court held that the Certificate granted to the plaintiff under section 13-A2 was duly proved and was not vitiated on any ground. The Court rejected the petitioners' objections regarding the proof of the Certificate, the non-application of mind by the issuing authority, and the plaintiff's failure to prove that she held a Scientific post. The Court also held that the Certificate was not required to be produced at the date of hearing of the suit, as it was sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the contents of the Certificate before the institution of the suit. 4. The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to eviction under section 13-A2 of the Act, as the Certificate was conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, including the plaintiff's need for the premises.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioners were directed to vacate the suit flat immediately after 31st July, 1986, subject to the orders of the Supreme Court, if any.

JUDGMENT - S.N. KHATRI, J.:---This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original defendants-tenants.

2. The 1st respondent is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The former, hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, has been working as an Assistant Pathologist in Tata Memorial Centre, Bombay, since August 1975. She and her mother (2nd respondent) brought a suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in June 1977 for eviction of the petitioners on two grounds under sections 13(1)(g) and 13-A2 of the Bombay Rent Act (hereafter "the Act"). The premises involved are a flat on the 1st floor of 'Amalfi", Napean Road, Bombay. The 1st petitioners are a public limited company (hereinafter for short, 'the company'). The 2nd respondent is their Managing Director. Admittedly under an Agreement of Leave and Licence dated 22nd April, 1971, the suit flat along with a garage was granted by the plaintiff and her mother to the Company for a period of three years from 16th March, 1971 to 15th March, 1974. The Agreement was executed by the 2nd petitioner on behalf of the Company. There is no dispute that the flat was taken for his occupation. As the Licence was admittedly subsisting on 1st of February, 1973, the Company became deemed tenant under section 15-A of the Act. The 3rd and the 4th petitioners are Officers of the Company. During the pendency of the eviction suit the 2nd petitioner left the premises for good. Thereafter the 3rd and the 4th petitioners came to be inducted therein by the Company in succession. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff had obtained a Certificate dated 29th March, 1977 from the Director of the Department of Atomic Energy, Bombay, that she was holding a Scientific Post in the Tata Memorial Centre which was an aided institution within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section 13-A2, and that she did not possess any other suitable residence in the local area where she or the members of her family could reside. The petitioners challenged both grounds of eviction. The trial Court decreed the suit on both grounds. The appeal taken by the petitioners to a Bench of two Judges of the same Court, came to be summarily dismissed. The learned Judges have recorded an exhaustive reasoned order running into 36 pages. Both Courts have thus held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession not only under section 13-bA2 but also under section 13(1)(g) of the Act. While upholding the latter ground they have also recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff on the question of comparative hardship. It is this decision which is now the subject-matter of challenge before me.

3. Shri Dalvi for the petitioners has raised a preliminary question that the Appellate Bench went wrong in dismissing the appeal summarily, when a number of triable issues had arisen for their consideration. He contends that the Appellate Bench should have admitted the appeal and that it has omitted to do so, the finding recorded by them are in excess of their jurisdiction. He requests that the matter be remitted back to that Court on this single ground, for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after duly admitting it. He relies on two decisions of the Supreme Court A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1932, (Madhav v. Sugandha)1 and A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 218, (Umakanth v. Parshuram)2. He also draws on a Single Judge decision of the Karnatak High Court reported in A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 138 (Smt. Nillelawwa v. Smt. Chinanwa)3.

4. It is true that in the two Supreme Court decisions that Court has observed that an appeal raising triable issues should not be summarily dismissed. I am however, clear that the aforesaid observations were made in the particular context of the cases and these decisions are distinguishable on facts. In both these matters, decisions of the Bombay High Court in First Appeals were under attack before the Supreme Court. This Court had summarily dismissed the two appeals by recording a single word order "dismissed". No reasons what

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(Bom) 142

An appellate court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal summarily if it finds that it does not raise any seriously arguable points.

Cases Referred (1)