LexSHYAMARAJU HEGDE versus U. VENKATESHA BHAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
Iii
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHY AMARAJU HEGDE
v.
U. VENKATESHA BHAT & ORS.
SEPTEMBER 25, 1987
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: s. 50(1) & (2}/Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908: s. 115-Revision order made by District Judge under
s. 50(2)-Whether revisable under s. 50( 1) of the Act read withs. 115 of
the Code.
Constitution of India, Art. 141-Judicial propriety warrants that
decisions of the Supreme Court must be taken as wholly binding on the
High Courts.
Sub-section (1) of s. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961
confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court In respect of orders
passed or proceedings taken by the Court of Small Causes or the Court
of Civil Judge under the Act while sub-s. (2) empowers the District Judge
to revise the orders passed or proceedings taken by the Court of Munsif
and makes his order final.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh
Shriodkar v. Gurupad Shivaram Kavalekar & Ors., (ILR 1978 Kar.
1585), following the decisions of this Court in Chhagan Lal v. The
Municipal Corporation. Indore, (1977] 2 SCR 871 and Krishnadas
Bhatija v. A.S. Venkatachala Shetty, (SLP No. 913 of 1978 decided on
13th Feb., 1978) held that the fact that the order of the District Judge
under s. 50(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 i.s made final,
does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under s. US of the
Code of Civil Procedure to revise such orders of the District Judge, in
the absence of any express words in the statute taking away such
jurisdiction.
Later this Court, in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, [1980] 3
SCR 32 while interpreting s. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts
Act, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act, 1978, under which the
revisional jurisdiction was shared between the District Court and the
High Court, took the view that the High Court was not vested with
revisional jurisdiction under s. US CPC in respect of a revisional order
made by the District Court under that section. A similar view was also
340
y"
~
}
-
)-~
)-
S. HEGDE v. U.V. BHAT
341
~ taken in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, AIR I987 SC 203 while
A
construing s. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
196~.
Relying on the aforesaid two decisimts a Full Bench of the High
Court of Karnataka in M.M. Yaragatti v. Vasant, (ILR 1987 Kar. 1286
took a contrary view to Krishnaji's case.
B
y
fhe appellant's revision petition having been dismissed by a
Sii!gle jud11e ot the High Court following the Full Bench decision in
"'
Yaragatti's case, he preferred an appeal to this Court by special leave.
Allowing the appeal,
c
)
ltttf>: 1, A revision application is maintainable under s. 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure read with s. 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent
Conttol Act• 1%1 when a District Judge has made an order in his
revlsi011al jurisdiction under s. 50(2) of the Act.
D
Chha!(an Lal v. The Municipal Corporation, Indore, [ 1977) 2
SCR 871 and krtshnadas Bhatija v. A.S. Venkatachala Shetty, (S.L.P.
No. 913 of 1918 decided on 13th of Febrnary, 1978, referred to.
---1
Vishesh kumar v. Shanti Prasad, (1980) 3 SCR 32; Aundal Am-
ma! v. Sadasivah Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 203; South Asia Industries Private
E
Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh & Ors., [1965) 2 SCR 756 and National
Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., [1953) SCR
-
1028, dntinguished.
krishtzaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shiva ram Kavalekar &
Ors., ILR 1978 Kar. 1585 approved.
F
--{
M.M. Yaragatti v. Vasant, ILR 1987 Kar. 1286 overruled.
2. The decision of a Full Bench of the High Court consisting of
three Judges rendered in Krishnaji' s Case was binding on a bench of
equal strength unless that decision had directly been overrnled by this
G
Court or by necessary implication became unsustainable. There is no
-i
such overruling of Krishnaji's decision by this Court. It cannot also be
said that by necessary implication the ratio therein supported by the
direct authority of this Court stood superseded. 1349B-C I
3. Judicial propriety warrants that decisions of the Supreme
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] 1 S.C.R.
A Court must be taken wholly binding on the High Courts. That is the
)«-
necessary outcome of the tier system. Article 141 of the Constitution
unequivocally states that the law declared by this Court shall be binding
B
on all courts within the territory of India. A coordinaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.