Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Surender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Bansal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Present petition has been filed aggrieved by impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller- I, Solan, District Solan, HP in rent Petition No.23/2 of 2014, titled Pankaj Bansal & Anr. Vs. Surender Kumar & Anr., whereby an application under Order 14 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issues has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the petition, documents appended thereto and examined the impugned order.
3. Rent petition, in the case at hand, has been filed on the ground of subletting and bona fide requirement. Issues, in the case at hand, were framed in the year 2015. Subsequent to the framing of the issues, the witnesses of the landlord were examined and even one witness on behalf of the tenant had been examined by the trial Court. At that stage an application was filed for framing of additional issues. The said application was filed on 22.09.2023 i.e. after about 8 years of framing of issues.
4. While deciding a rent petition, the following well-settled principles enumerated by the Apex Court in judgment reported as 2018 (2) SCC 352 , titled Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring compliance with legal parameters and does not extend to correcting errors of law or fact.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not to correct every legal error or re-weigh evidence.
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to ensuring no grave dereliction of duty occurs, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting the lower court's conclusions.
The need for an authenticated copy of the impugned order when challenging it under Article 227 and the power of superintendence under Article 227 to maintain public confidence in the functioning of t....
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to reviewing whether lower courts acted within their jurisdiction and does not extend to correcting errors of law.
The Court's supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution is limited and discretionary, and it will not intervene to correct every error of law or fact committed by the courts below.
Amendments to the Bombay Rent Act legalized certain sub-tenancies, affecting eviction rights and retrospective applicability.
Tenants must establish the identity of vacant premises for eviction claims under the Rent Control Act; the court's supervisory role is limited to evident judicial errors.
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
