B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Following questions are placed before us as per orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice :

i) Whether the learned Division Bench in deciding L.P.A. No. 150/2010 on 1.10.2010 was bound to take into account and follow the view of the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. Limited .vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors – (2009) 1 SCC 8, taken by a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court instead of following the view of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another .vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil – 2010 (7) SCALE 428, decided by two Judges of that Court having regard to the rule of law and practice laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi – AIR 1976 SC 2547 ?

And

ii) Whether the learned Division Bench ought to have followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. Limited and held that a L.P.A. is tenable against an order of Single Judge passed in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in a matter arising out of an order of inferior Court or Tribunals in a dispute between two private parties such as a landlord and tenant ?

2. History leading to this Reference.

Judgment in L.P.A. No. 150/2010 dated 1.10.2010 at the root of controversy is reported at 2011(2) Mah.L.J. 497-Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah vs. Manhar Auto Stores, Amraoti. The history leading to these proceedings can be safely stated from the reference order of later Division Bench in Letters Patent appeal 268/2007 arising out of W.P. No. 1851/1995Ramchandra s/o Dagoji Rangari, (dead) through his legal heirs, . Versus .1. Vishwanath Champat Naik & . Additional Collector, Amravati on 20th December 2010. Said L.P.A. arose from the judgment refusing to issue the writ of certiorari in a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector in proceedings under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The tenability of said LPA was questioned relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 150/2010 where the earlier Division Bench held that dispute between landlord and tenant can be entertained only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Contention was as Article 226 could not have been invoked, the L.P.A. was barred. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another .vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil – 2010

(7) SCALE 428-(2010) 8 SCC 329-2010 AIR SCW 6387was also pressed into service by respondent landlord. Appellantstenants urged that that Division Bench erred in considering itself bound by the decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), which is rendered by a bench of two Judges, without considering that a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of three Judges in M.M.T.C. Limited .vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.( 2009) 1 S.C.C. 8 has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable in similar circumstances and, therefore, the L.P.A. was/is tenable. It was argued that when the High Court comes across any conflict between the views expressed by the larger and smaller Benches of the Supreme Court, it cannot disregard the views expressed by the larger Benches and is bound to follow the view expressed by the larger Bench. Support was taken from State of U.P. .vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi – AIR 1976 S.C. 2547.Later Division Bench of

this Court noted that in Shalini Shyam Shetty’s case (supra) Hon'ble two-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, after tracing the history of the conferment of the writ jurisdiction on the High Courts and having regard to the parameters of interference laid down in earlier decisions, came to the conclusion that in a pure dispute between a landlord and tenant which is a dispute between private parties, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but ought to have dismissed it. Position of