Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 105799
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Unknown, J
LEELAWATI (DEAD) THR. LRS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16536 of 2016)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not Mentioned
For the Respondents: Not Mentioned
The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is limited, and vexatious litigation warrants cost imposition.
Headnote:The Supreme Court, in the case arising from the dismissal of a writ petition, held that findings of the appellate authority on bona fide need were not perverse. The court emphasized that its scope of judicial review under Article 227 is restrictive and justified the imposition of costs for vexatious litigation. Final costs were enhanced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and should not interfere with the findings of lower courts unless they are perverse or contrary to material evidence. This restriction aims to maintain judicial discipline and respect for the decisions of subordinate courts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
In cases involving eviction based on bona fide need, the landlord must substantiate their claim with sufficient evidence. The appellate authority's findings on bona fide need are considered valid unless shown to be perverse [Para 2, 5].
-
Vexatious litigation, which involves repeated or frivolous attempts to challenge court orders, is recognized as harmful to the judicial process. Courts are justified in imposing costs on parties engaging in such conduct to discourage misuse of legal proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The court has the authority to enhance costs for vexatious litigation. In this case, the initial cost imposed was Rs. 20,000, but it was increased to Rs. 50,000 due to the petitioner’s persistent and frivolous attempts to pursue the matter despite final orders dismissing their previous petitions (!) (!) .
-
The costs imposed for vexatious litigation are to be deposited with the relevant legal services authority within a specified period, failing which they can be recovered as arrears of land revenue (!) (!) .
-
The case involved multiple proceedings, including writ petitions related to eviction and rent, with interim orders and final dismissals. The petitioner’s attempt to re-litigate issues after final orders and the concealment of relevant facts were considered acts of misconduct, justifying the costs and the court’s decision to dismiss the appeal (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that justice must be administered honestly and without concealment or manipulation. Any attempt to mislead the court or pursue meritless claims can undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings and warrants sanctions (!) (!) .
-
The appellate and higher courts are committed to ensuring that litigation is pursued in good faith and that abuse of process is penalized to uphold the dignity of the judicial system (!) (!) .
These points collectively underscore the importance of judicial restraint, the necessity of supporting eviction claims with adequate evidence, and the judiciary’s stance against vexatious litigation through appropriate costs and sanctions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction based on bona fide need must be supported by sufficient evidence. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. judicial review under article 227 is limited to avoid interference with lower courts. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. vexatious litigation can lead to enhanced costs against the petitioner. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Arising out of dismissal of the Writ Petition-C No. 63564 of 2015 by the High Court with a cost of Rs.20,000/-, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
3. On perusal of the order it reveals, the suit seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need was filed by appellant which was decreed by the prescribed authority under the Rent Act. On filing the rent appeal by tenant, it was allowed for the reason that in a suit Signature bNot aVersifieded on bona fide need, ownership has not been proved by the landlord. Assailing the said order, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42095 of 2001 was filed by the landlord. The High Court while entertaining the writ petition passed an interim order on 22.09.2006. The said order is relevant therefore, reproduced as thus:
“Having pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstance of the case and location/area etc. of the accommodation in dispute, it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be increased to Rs. 2000/- per month from September, 2006. It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month towards rent to the landlady. The rent of September 2006 shall be paid by 7th of October, 2006 and thereafter by 7th day of each succeeding month till further orders. In case of default in payment of the current rent as directed by this Court the landlord can get the disputed accommodation vacated with the help of police within a period of one month by giving notice in writing.”
4. Bare perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Court directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as enhanced rent from September 2006. It was also observed that in case of default in payment of enhanced current rent, the landlord can get the possession of the suit premises with the help of police after serving notice of one month. The appellant alleges that the enhanced rent had not been paid. It is also a fact that the said writ petition was finally dismissed on 05.12.2012. The order of the dismissal of writ petition is relevant, therefore, reproduced for ready reference as thus:
“5. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show that findings of fact recorded by Appellate Court are perverse or contrary to material on record. In absence of anything to demonstrate perversity in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, I find no reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under
There is nothing which may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.
6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere.
7. Dismissed.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.“
5. As per the said order, while dismissing the writ petition filed against the judgment passed in rent appeal, dismissing the suit of eviction, the Court observed that the order of the appellate authority did not reflect any perversity, therefore in a limited scope of judicial review under
6. As per the interim order dated 22.09.2006 and till dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant could not get the possession, therefore, she filed Writ Petition No. 64567 of 2013 which was disposed of by order dated 26.11.2013. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:
“Consequently, in the facts of the case, SSP/DIG of Kanpur Nagar, is directed to look in
