T.A. HAMEED versus M. VISWANATHAN

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 21-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 210 
.. 
.. 
A 
T.A. HAMEED 
v. 
M. VISWANATHAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8422 of 2001) 
B 
FEBRUARY 21, 2008 
(A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
HIGH COURT - Reference of a question of law to Full 
Bench - Jurisdiction of - Full Bench answering the question 
c and also deciding the revision itself on merits - Held: The 
Full Bench had no jurisdiction to decide the revision petition 
- The revision petition was not referred to the Full Bench for 
decision - Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench, 
it should have answered the question referred to it and remitted 
D the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the revision 
petition on merits - The order of the Full Bench deciding the 
civil revision petition on merits was not correct - The revision 
petition shall stand revived and be placed for hearing before 
a Division Bench, which shall dispose of the same in 
E 
accordance with law after hearing both the parties :... Practice 
and Procedure - Jurisdiction of Full Bench of High Court - In 
the case of reference of a question of law to it- Kera/a Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act - s.11 (17). 
--
Kera/a State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal 
F 
Co. and others (2006) 6 SCC 258; and Kesha Nath Khurana 
I. 
v. Union of India and Others 1981 (Supp.) SCC 38 - relied 
on 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8422 
of 2001. 
G 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 8/8/2000 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 2006/1999. 
WITH 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1817 of 2004. 
.,.. 
H 
210 
T.A. HAMEED v. M. VISWANATHAN 
211 
./ 
r· 
Malini Poduval and Nishe Rajen Shonker (for M/s. T.T.K. A 
Deepak & Co.) for the Appellant. 
Subramonium Prasad and K. Rajeev for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
C.A. No. 8422/2001 
B 
.'' 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel 
' 
/. 
for the parties submit that the parties have compromised the 
matter and, therefore, the present appeal has become 
infructuous. 
c 
2. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. 
No order as to costs. 
~ 
C.A. No. 1817/2004 
3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the D 
~ 
>" 
judgment and order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Full Bench 
· of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 234/1997 whereby the 
learned Full Bench has ·answered the question referred to it by 
the Division Bench and while answering the question referred 
to it, the Full Bench itself decided the case on merits. The E 
grievance of the appellant herein is that in view of the law laid 
down by this Court in the case of Kesho Nath Khurana Vs. 
Union of India and Others 1981 (Supp) SCC 38 and Kera/a 
State Science & Technology Museum Vs. Rambal Co. and 
..; 
Others (2006) 6 SCC 258, the Full Bench should not have gone 
F 
on the merits of the matter and the Full Bench should have after 
answering the reference remitted the matter back to the Division 
Bench for deciding the Civil Revision Petition. 
4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present 
appeal are that a Reference was made by the Division Bench G 
of the High Court of Kerala, which reads as under:-
"Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the 
..... 
protection of Section 11 (17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act?" 
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
5. This Reference was answered by the Full Bench in para 
" 
'-
18 of the impugned order in the following words, 
"the benefits under Section 11 (17) to the legal heirs/tenants 
cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law." 
B 
In para 19 of the impugned order the learned Full Bench 
asked counsel for both the parties to advance arguments on 
merits also as the proceedings were initiated about a decade 
~ 
back and asked counsel for the parties for disposing of the 
... 
revision petition itself and accordingly arguments were heard 
c on merits of the Revision Petition also and Revision Petition 
was disposed! of by dismissing the same and directing the 
appellant-tena1nt to surrender possession witbin six months and 
directing the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking to that 
effect. 
D 
6. Aggrieved against the said order dated 31.1.2003 of 
the Full Bench, the present appeal by special leave has been 
filed before this Court. 
_., 
• 
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The 
E 
principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is 
that the Full Bench should not have disposed of 

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