LexOUSEPH MATHAI AND ORS. versus M. ABDUL KHADIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c OUSEPH MATHAI AND ORS. v. M. ABDUL KHADIR NOVEMBER 5, 2001 [M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: Kera/a Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections II, 12, 18 and 20-0rder of eviction passed-For vacating of the order, period of two months fixed for payment of arrears of rent-Tenants failed to pay arrears of rent-Instead.filed application for extension of time-Application dismissed- Thereafter tenants deposited rent to claim ben~fit of seclion I 1(2)(c)-Also .filed application for vacating eviction order-Both Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority dismissed applications-High Court reversed the or- , D ders-On appeal, held the tenants were not entitled to any discretionary reli~f under Article 227-High Court not right in assuming jurisdiction and exercis- E F G H ing power thereunder-Constitution of India, Article 227. Appellant-landlord filed a revision petition against respondent-ten- ant on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonqfide need for reconstruction. The rent control conrt passed eviction order on the latter ground. Both the appellant and respondent then filed cross appeals. Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. However, appeal filed by the appellant for eviction was allowed on the ground of arrears of rent. Respondent filed a revision petition which was dismissed. A period of two months was fixed by the Court for vacating the order of eviction provided the Respondent deposited the arrears of rent. However the Respondent did not avail the opportunity and filed a second revision petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and an application before the revisional authority for extension of time for deposit of rent. Both were dismissed. Respondent deposited the arrears of rent and filed an application in the rent control court for vacating the order of eviction. Application was dismissed. Ap- peal filed before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. The re- spondent then filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court reversed the order of the Appellate Authority. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the present appeals, the Court 118 • OUSEPH MATHAI v. M. ABDUL KHADIR 119 HELD : 1.1. Law requires dispossession of the tenant who defaults in A paying the rent. In the instant case the respondents failed to pay arrears of rent within time. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case they are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Consti- tution of India. [129-A] 1.2. High Court appears to have assumed the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution without referring to the facts of the case warranting the exercising of such a jurisdiction. Extraordinary powers appears to have been exercised in a routine manner as if the power under Article 227 of the Constitution was the extension of powers conferred upon a litigant under a specified statute. Such an approach and interpre- tation is unwarranted. (123-D-E] 2. Powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the 'Constitution are extraordinary and dis-cretionary powers B c as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt article 227 D confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals through- out the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdic- tion under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact powers under Article 227 cast a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and E tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law confering powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only the wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party. (121-G-H; 122-A-B] Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, [1954] SCR 565; Nagendra Nath Bose v. F Commer. ~f Hills Division. [1958] SCR 1240; Chandavarkar Sita Raina Rao v. G Ashalata S. Gurnam, [1986] 4 SCC 447; Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Anr. v. Pratapsing Mohansi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.