C.N. RUDRAMURTHY ETC. versus K. BARKATULLA KHAN AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 08-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
C.N. RUDRAMURTHY ETC. 
v. 
K. BARKATULLA KHAN AND ORS. ETC. 
OCTOBER 8, 1998 
[HON'BLE M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ., G.B. PATTANAIK AND 
S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction 
C 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-S. 31-Eviction suit-
lnapplicability of the provisions of the Act to premises whose monthly rent 
exceeds Rs. 500/-Supreme Court holding in D. C. Bhatia 's case that provisions 
of S. 3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act not applicable to premises whose 
menthly rent exceeds Rs. 3000-High Court relying upon a contrary view of 
D High Court in Padmanabha Rao's case declaring S. 31 as invalid-Eviction 
decree passed by Trial Court set aside-Parties directed to approach Rent 
Control Court-Validity of-Held, the law laid down by Supreme Court is 
binding on all Courts-High Court not justified in taking a contrary view 
by relying upon a decision which was impliedly overruled by Supreme 
Court-Eviction decree passed by Trial Court restored-Delhi Rent Control 
E Act, 1958-Sec. 3(c). 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141-Law declared by Supreme 
Court-Binding effect of-Held, law declared by Supreme Court is binding 
on all Courts-Karna/aka Rent Control Act, 1961-S. 31. 
F 
Appellant-landlord's suit for eviction was decreed by Trial Court. On 
appeal, High Court set aside the said decree holding that in view of provisions 
of S. 21(1) (I) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the Trial Court had 
no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. Appellant contended before the 
High Court that S. 31 of the Act, exempted from the applicability of the Act, 
premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 500. It was also brought to the 
G notice of the High Court that this Court in Shobha Surendar's case* had 
held that the law laid down in D.C. Bhatia 's case** would be applicable. In 
D.C. Bhatia 's case it was held by this court that in view of S. 3(c) of Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958, the said Act would not be applicable to Premises 
whose monthly income exceeded Rs. 3000, which was akin to provision of S. 
H 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. However, High Court relying upon 
196 
0 
197 
C.N. RUDRAMURTHY v. K.B. KHAN 
the decision of this court in Rattan Arya 's case*** and decision of High A 
Court in Padmanabha Rao 's case**** declaring S. 31 of the Act as invalid, 
directed the parties to work out their remedies under the Rent Control Act. 
Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that since there was no 
direct decision of this Court holding that the law laid down in Padmanabha B 
Rao 's case as incorrect, the said case may be examined by this Court; if S. 
31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was held valid relying upon D.C. 
Bhatia's case, then the said enactment would keep out of its purview large 
number of premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 500. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of High Court, the C 
Court. 
HELD : 1. High Court was not justified in directing the parties to work 
out their remedies under the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961. The eviction 
decree passed by Trial Court is restored. [201-G; 203-C) 
2.1. It is a matter of judicial discipline that requires that when this D 
Court states as to what the law on the matter is, the same shall be binding 
on all the courts within the territory of India. This mandate of Article 141 
of the Constitution is not based on any doctrine of precedents, but is an 
imprimature to all courts than the law declared by this Court is binding on 
them. Thus, it was not open to the High Court to consider the effect of the 
decisions in Rattan Arya 's case, its §cope, what was decided therein and E 
whether there could be any distinction between that decision and the decision 
rendered in D.C. Bhatia's case. The clear pronouncement made by this court 
in Shobha Surendar 's case was that D. C. Bhatia 's case was applicable with 
reference to S. 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and, therefore, in view 
of that decision the High Court's decision was upset in another matter p 
where, the High Court had followed the Padmanabha Rao's case. The law 
declared by this Court is clear that the D.C. Bhatia's case was applicable to 
the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act. Thus, it was not at all open 
to the High Court to have tried to explain the decision of this Court and ought 
to have simplicity followed the decision of this Court • .[201-D-E-F) 
D.C. Bhatia and Ors. v. Union of India, (1995) l SCC 104 and Sho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.