LexFIRM OF HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS & ANR. versus PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
397 FIRM OF HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS & ANR. A ~. PRABHUDAS smvLAL April 16. 1971 (C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J Practice and Proced11re-Application for special leave to this Court-- A verment giving inipression that attention of High Court was drawn to the conflicting decision of another High Court, when in fact it 'tt'O.\' not so drawn-c;rant of ll·ave-lf may b~ revoked on the gro1111d that this Court was mi.~/ed. The respondent who was the landlord of certain premises in Surat, filed a suit for the eviction of the petitioners, who were the tenants, on the ground of non payment of rent. The petitioners filed a written statcn1ent in which they raised a dispute regarding the standard rent. and also con· tended that they had raised such a djspute within the time allowed by law. that is, one month of service of the suit notice. The trial court a~ well as thr appellate court found that a dispute regarding standard rent wcu; not rilised within one month of service of the suit notice and held. following a decision of the Gujarat High Court, that the respondent was entitled to recover posession under s. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The High Court of Gujarat also rejected the petitioners' revision petition. Thereupon, the petitioners filed an application in this Court. for special leave. contending that the High Court of Bombay had held that it was sufficient if the dispute regard· ing standard rent was raised in the written staten1ent, and that, in such a ca.6r eviction could not be ordered under s. 12(3) (a); and since there was a direct conflict between the High Courts of Gujarat and Bombay an important question of law relating to the scope and applicability of s.. t~(J) (a) arose. This Court granted special leave and stay. The respondent filed an application for revocation of the grant of special leave on the ground that the averments in the special leave petition gave the impression that the attention of the Gujarat High Court was dra9.'D to the decision of the Bombay High Court, while in fact. it was not so. and that therefore the petitioners had misled this Court. HELD: Assuming that the grounds in the special leave applicatil)O gave the impression that the attention of Gujarat High Court was drawn to the decision of the Bombay High Court, it could not be stated that there was any mis-statement or untrue averment in the grounds. The conte~tinn rai!lled was a legal contention. and there was no other manner in which a pany could draw the attention of this Court to the conflict het\\'e~n the two High Courts. [405E-G]. It is but proper that if a party wants to have a particular legal position settled io a High Court, reconsidered on the basis of a different view taken by another High Court, he should draw the attention of the High Court, \\'h"n the que~tion is raised. to the conflicting decisions. Even if he has or1itted to do so it cannot be said that when the correctness of the judg- ment so given, is concerned before this Court he should not be allowed. to challenge the decision on the ground that another High Court has takell a different view. Such a ground on a legal point should not be confused B c D E G H 398 SUPREME COURT llBPO!lTS [1971] SUPP. s.c.R. A B or mixed up with averments regarding material facts or matters of impoi .. lance. [405G-H; 406A-C]. The statements in the special leave petition could not be considered to be untrue or false on material facts or matters of importance, and therefore, the prayer for revoking the special leave would have to be tejected. [4060]. CIVIL APPELLATE JUIUSDICTION : Civil Misc. Petition Nus. 854 and 2282 of 1971. Applications for stay and for amendment of the prayer in C. M. P. No. 854 of 1971. Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1971. c Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 22, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1353 of 1970. S. T. Desai, S. V. Tambwekar for S. K. Dholakia, for the petitioners and appellants. D I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. E F G H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J.-The petitioners in both these applications have taken on lease the ground fioor portion of property in Ward No. V. Nondh No. 1088 of Surat. The respondent became the owner of the said property by purchasing it from the previous owner by a registered sale deed dated September
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.