HAMEED KUNJU versus NAZIM

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 17-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 375 
HAMEED KUNJU 
v 
NAZIM 
(Civil Appeal No. 9151 of2017) 
JULY 17, 2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction -
Exercise of; by the High Court - Eviction matter - Rounds of 
litigation - Writ petition by tenant u!Art. 227 challenging the four 
C 
orders of trial court/executing court- High Court interfered with 
the four orders impugned and allowed the petition - Case remanded 
to trial court for deciding the eviction petition de novo on merits 
with directions to trial court to allow the applications filed by tenant 
- Justification of - Held: High Court erred in entertaining the 
tenant's writ petition as also in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction 
D 
by interfering in the orders impugned therein - On facts or/and in 
law, no case made out by tenant on the merits - High Court should 
have dismissed the writ petition in limine since all the four orders 
impugned in the writ petition were amenable to their challenge before 
the appellate authority - Writ petition was not the proper remedy 
without first filing the appeal - Further, the High Court should have 
appreciated the that the eviction decree had stood executed and 
possession wJs already delivered to the landlord of all the suit shops 
- Litigation had come to an end leaving no Lis pending- Furthermore, 
not a case where tenant was unaware of the eviction proceedings 
pending or/and decided against h_im nor a case that he was never 
afforded any opportunity - Also High Court had no jurisdiction to 
issue directions to trial court to pass a particular order by allowing 
the application - Kerela Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 
1965 - ss. 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3). 
E 
F 
Rent control and eviction - Rent Laws - Object of - Held: Is 
G 
to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord 
and tenant and especially where the landlord seek eviction for his 
bona fide need - Due attention to be paid by courts to ensure speedy 
disposal of eviction cases. 
H 
375 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The facts would clearly reveal that the High 
Court not only erred in entertaining the respondent's writ petition 
but also erred in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction by 
interfering in the orders impugned therein. There was no case 
B 
made out on facts or/and in law by the respondent for entertaining 
his writ petition and interfere in the orders impugned therein. 
The impugned order is without jurisdiction and is set aside and 
all the applications filed by the respondent before the trial court 
in main eviction case are dismissed as being wholly misconceived · 
C and devoid of any merit. [Paras 26, 27, 45, 49] [384-H; 385-A-B; 
388-C-F-G) 
1.2 In the first instance itself, the High Court, should have 
dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that since all 
the four orders impugned in the writ petition were amenable to 
D their challenge before the appellate authority, the writ petition 
was not the proper remedy without first filing the appeal and get 
the same decided by the appellate court on its merit in accordance 
with law. The High Court should have declined to entertain the 
writ petition under Article 227 on the ground of availability of an 
E 
F 
alternative remedy of appeal to the respondent. Indeed· the 
respondent had actually filed appeal in the first round of litigation 
against the orders of the trial court. There was, therefore, no 
reason much less justifiable one for the High Court to have 
entertained the writ under Article 227 against as many as four 
orders passed by the trial court/ executing court. [Paras 28, 29] 
[385-B-D] 
1.3 The executing court having seized of the applications 
filed by the respondent, there was no justification on the part of 
the High Court to have entertained the writ petition and decided 
them like an original court. All that the High Court, in such 
G circumstances, could do was to request the executing court to 
dispose of the pending applications filed by the respondent on 
merits leaving the parties to challenge the orders once passed 
on such applications by filing appeal, before the appellate 
authorities. It was, however, not done. [Para 30] [385-E-F] 
H 
HAMEED KUNJU v. NAZTM 
377 
1.4 The High Court should have appreciated the undisputed 
A 
fact that the eviction decree had stood executed and possession 
was already delivered 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.