LexJAI SINGH AND ORS. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 12 S.C.R. 358 JAi SINGH AND ORS. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8233 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Scope and C ambit of - Discussed - Eviction petition, on the ground of sub- letting without written consent - Allowed by Rent Controller - Order upheld by Tribunal - Writ petition under Article 227 by MCD - High Court set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal and quashed the D orders passed by them - Justification of - Held: Not justified - The writ petition filed by MCD was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and /aches alone - Even otherwise, exercise of power under Article 227 by th.e High Court, in the peculiar facts of this case was improper - The entire E proceedings adopted by MCD were a subterfuge to avoid the execution proceedings in a decree which had become final between the parties - The High Court erroneously undertook investigation into issues which did not even arise in the /is - It traveled beyond the well defined contours of its jurisdiction F under Article 227 - Rent Control - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - ss.14(1)(b) and 39(1) - Delayllaches. The appellants claiming themselves to be the landlords in respect of premises in question filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, G 1958. They alleged that the premises were let out to respondent No.2 (OTC); that OTC sublet/assigned the premises in favour of respondent No.1 (MCO) and parted with possession in favour of MCD without the written consent of the appellants and, therefore, both OTC and H 358 JAi SINGH AND ORS. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 359 OF DELHI AND ANR. MCD were liable for eviction. The Assistant Rent Controller A (ARC) allowed the eviction petition holding that OTC had sublet the premises to MCD. OTC lost in appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) as also in appeal before the High Court. Meanwhile, MCD too had appealed against the order B of ARC before ARCT and then before the High Court. Following the order passed by the High Court in the appeal filed by OTC, the appeal filed by MCD was also dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, but C then the said order was recalled, whereafter\MCD moved an application with a prayer that its appeal be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The said application was disposed off by the High Court, whereafter MCD filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, on which the High Court quashed the orders passed by the ARC and ARCT. Disposing ofthe appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to 'the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powe.rs with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be D E F G H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A within the well recognized constraints. It can not be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Tliis correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in B grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re- appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the c.Jnclusions reached by the C courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unle
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.