LexNIRMJAL JEET SINGH HOON versus IRTIZA HUSSAIN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 109 NIRMJAL JEET SINGH HOON A v. IRTIZA HUSSAIN AND ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30648-51 of 2010) OCTOBER 26, 2010 8 (P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Rent Control - UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s. 21 (1 )(a) - Respondents- plaintiffs filed suit for ejectment and arrears of C rent on ground that the defendants had illegally sub-let the suit property to the petitioner; and had also refused to pay the amount due as rent - Trial court decreed the suit - High Court upheld the decree - Before Supreme Court, Petitioner-in- person kept his case limited to the issue of the transfer of the D suit property prior to the institution of the suit and contended that a thorough investigation was required against the Judge who decided the case - On appeal, held: One fails to understand how the petitioner could challenge the transfer, if he has no title in the suit property - The Small Cause Court E cannot adjudicate upon the issue of title and, therefore, the trial court has rightly refused to go into that issue - More so, as admittedly defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the tenants, the question of title could not be adjudicated at the behest of the petitioner undet any circumstance - Procedure adopted in trial F of the case before the Small Cause Court is summary in nature - The Small Cause Court does not possess exclusive jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is merely preferential - Findings on the issue of title recorded by the Small Cause Court do not operate as res judicata and ultimately the issue of title has G to be adjudicated upon by the competent civil court-, The original defendant No. 1, who had entered into the contract of tenancy had died ~nd his legal heirs, if any, had not been impleaded as parties in this petition - Thus, it raises a doubt 109 H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A regarding the maintainability of the petition itself - None of the persons against whom unsubstantiated, uncalled for and unwarranted a/legations have been made h·as been impleaded - Thus, such a/legations cannot be entertained - More so, this Court has already dealt with the impugned B judgment while deciding a SLP and the impugned judgment has been upheld - In the said case, the present petitioner was also a party - Entertaining this petition would amount to review of the said earlier order - The law does not permit two contradictory and inconsistent orders in the same case in c respect of the same subject matter - The petitions lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed -Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887- s.23 and Schedule II, Clause 35- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -s. 106. D Practice and Procedure: Multiple proceedings - After dismissal of SLP against same order and involving same subject matter, another SLP filed by a person who was a party in the earlier petition - Held: Entertaining the instant petition would amount to review of the E earlier order - The law does not permit two contradictory and inconsistent orders in the same case in respect of the same subject matter. Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1772 ; Ram Chandra Pandey v. Maheshwari Singh & Ors. AIR F 1962 All 480; Manzurul Haq & Anr. v. Hakim Mohsin Ali AIR 1970 All 604 (F.B.); Dhulabai etc. v. State of MP. AIR 1969 SC 78; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1081; State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam AIR 1986 SC 794; State of Rajasthan v. G Harphool Singh (dead) thr. His Lrs. (2000) 5 SCC 652; Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1249; Abdul Aziz v. State of WB. & Anr. (1995) 6 SCC 45; Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. & Ors. v. P. Surya Bhagavan AIR 2003 SC 2182; Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief H NIRMJAL JEET SINGH HOON v. IRTIZA HUSSAIN 111 AND ORS. Election Officer & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 95; Dr. J.N. Banavalikar A v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 326; State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, l.A.S. & Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260; l.K.· Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 228 and All India State Bank Officers' Federation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 151 - relied on. B Case Law Reference: AIR 1998 SC 1772 relied on Para 7 AIR 1962 All 480 relied on Para 8 c AIR 1970 All 604 (F.B) relied on Para 8 AIR 1969 SC 78 relied on Para 9 AIR 1982 SC 1081 relied on Para 9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.