Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another
Versus
Rajendra Shankar Patil
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5896 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7445 of 2009)
Decided on : 23-07-2010
Writ Petition - Claim petition - Plaintiff the original defendant was the tenant in respect of Room - Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of breach of terms of tenancy, damage to the property as well as causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and the other occupants - Held, Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, Honble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above - Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest Courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly - For the reasons aforesaid, it is held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord - Appeal allowed.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is distinct from its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It is not an appellate or original jurisdiction but a power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals, including civil courts governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This power is plenary and unfettered but must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. It aims to ensure subordinate courts act within their authority, follow legal procedures, and prevent miscarriage of justice, without converting the High Court into a court of appeal or re-appreciating evidence.
The Supreme Court has outlined specific, time-honored principles limiting interference:
Keeping Subordinate Courts within Bounds of Authority: Interference is warranted only to ensure subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction, assume unwarranted jurisdiction, refuse to exercise vested jurisdiction, or exercise jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law, leading to failure of justice or grave injustice. (!) (!) (!) (!) [p_1000488290061 (e)][p_1000488290061 (f)]
Patent Perversity, Gross Failure of Justice, or Violation of Natural Justice: The High Court may intervene where there is patent perversity in the order, gross and manifest failure of justice, or flagrant violation of natural justice principles. Mere errors of fact or law do not suffice unless manifest and apparent on the face of the record, based on clear ignorance or disregard of law, and causing grave injustice. (!) (!) (!) [p_1000488290061 (g)]
No Re-appreciation of Evidence or Correction of Mere Errors: The High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence, correct errors in inferences, or interfere merely because another view is possible. It does not review the correctness of decisions on facts or law, nor address formal or technical errors. (!) (!) (!) (!) [p_1000488290061 (h)]
Sparingly Exercised and Discretionary: The power must be used most sparingly, with care, caution, and circumspection, only where judicial conscience compels action to avert travesty of justice. It is discretionary, not a matter of right, and restrained where alternative remedies like appeal or revision exist. Frequent use undermines judicial discipline. (!) (!) (!) (!) [p_1000488290061 (c)][p_1000488290061 (h)][p_1000488290061 (k)][p_1000488290061 (o)]
Not Affected by Statutory Limits on Revision: Amendments curtailing revisional jurisdiction under statutes like CPC do not expand or limit Article 227 powers, which form part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be abrogated by legislation. [p_1000488290061 (i)][p_1000488290061 (j)]
Broader Objectives: The jurisdiction promotes public confidence in justice administration, ensuring efficiency and orderly functioning of subordinate courts, rather than granting individual relief. It can be exercised suo motu in appropriate cases. (!) [p_1000488290061 (k)][p_1000488290061 (l)][p_1000488290061 (m)][p_1000488290061 (n)]
The following paragraphs directly formulate or reiterate these principles (tagged individually as per judgment structure): - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) (comprehensively lists principles (a) to (o))
In pure private disputes (e.g., landlord-tenant), writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not maintainable against civil court orders, reinforcing that Article 227 should not be invoked routinely for such matters absent jurisdictional errors. (!) (!)
Judgment :
GANGULY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the original defendant challenging the judgment and order dated 09.02.2009 of the Bombay High Court rendered in the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in view of concurrent finding of two lower courts and High Court thought that no interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is warranted.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of breach of terms of tenancy, damage to the property as well as causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and the other occupants. As per the plaintiff the original defendant was the tenant in respect of Room No.3 (hereinafter as suit premises) and was paying monthly rent of Rs.20/-including the water charges and excluding the electricity charges. The case of the plaintiff is that only the suit premises was let out though the original tenant was allowed to use a covered space of 10'x 4', but the same was for common usage and for access to W.C and water tap along with the other tenants.
4. Plaintiff claims that somewhere in January 2000, the defendant had requested the plaintiff to give keys of the two doors to clean the `Sherry' portion. But the said keys were not returned even after 2-3 days and the plaintiff became suspicious and requested the defendant for returning the keys, but in vein. Suspecting some foul play, the plaintiff entered the `sherry' to find that the defendant had placed his items over there and removed the drainage cover which was there in the Sherry. A police complaint was made with regard to the unauthorized possession but nothing happened. The plaintiff then requested the defendant to remove those articles but the request of the plaintiff was not heeded.
5. The defendant/appellant's father is said to have filed a suit for relief of declaration as tenant in the premises and to further restrain the landlord from interfering in the tenanted premises. In the said suit injunction was granted. Thereafter, the plaintiff had demolished a wall that was there in the Sherry and put up a new door.
6. The original defendant expired during the pendency of the suit and his LRs were brought on record and they, in their written statement, admitted the relationship between the parties, but they denied all the allegations against them. They made a claim that the space measuring about 10'x4' abutting the entrance door of suit premises was in their exclusive use. As regards the suit filed by the appellant's father it was submitted that the same was settled outside the court with the understanding that the defendant would withdraw his suit, whereas the plaintiff will withdraw his suit simultaneously. An affidavit dated 16.03.01 was filed to that effect.
7. The learned Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, Bandra Branch vide its judgment dated 30.10.07 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within a period of four months from the date of the order. It was held that at the time of filing of the present suit, as per evidence on record, the defendants were in unlawful occupation of the sherry portion of the suit property, which was admittedly not let out. As regards the settlement outside court it was held that the affidavit, Exhibit `E', relied on by the defendants merely speaks of withdrawal of the suit of defendants and settlement of dispute. There is no mention about the present suit being settled. It was noted that admittedly the plaintiff has no documentary evidence to prove that the defendants had encroached and occupied the sherry portion of the suit property. But it was observed that there is corroborative evidence in this behalf in the form of NC Slip Exhibit `G' which shows that the complaint was filed immediately after the plaintiff learnt about this unlawful poss
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
