1969 (4) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution with the order of the appellate court in proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, when a petition for revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, against the same order had been previously dismissed by a single Judge of that court? Held that - On the assumption that the order of the appellate court had not merged in the order of the single Judge who had disposed of the revision petition we are of the view that a writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court when the respondent had already chosen the remedy under Section 115 of the CPC. If there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes has been chosen and exhausted it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the subordinate court. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances would be in consonance with the anxiety of the court to prevent abuse of process as also to respect and accord finality to its own decisions. Appeal is allowed and the judgment of the division bench of the High Court is hereby set aside

Summary

Issues:
Interference under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution with the order of the appellate court in proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, after a petition for revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, had been dismissed by a single Judge of that court.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute between the appellant, the owner of a house in Poona, and the respondent, a teacher who was the tenant of a block of four rooms in the house. The appellant sought possession of the premises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on the grounds that the respondent had acquired suitable accommodation elsewhere. The trial court granted possession of two rooms, but both parties appealed to the District Judge. The Extra Assistant Judge affirmed the trial court's decree, stating that the premises were suitable for the whole family. The respondent then filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. Subsequently, the respondent challenged the same order of the appellate court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The division bench of the High Court, relying on the decision in K.B. Sipahimalani v. Fidahussein Vallibhoy, held that interference under Articles 226 and 227 could be justified if a proper case was made out, despite the dismissal of the revision petition. The bench concluded that the respondent had not acquired an alternative suitable residence, contrary to the lower courts' findings. As a result, the orders of the courts below were set aside, citing a misinterpretation of Section 13(1)(1) of the Act.

The Supreme Court delved into the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction, referencing the case law to determine the scope of the High Court's powers under Section 115 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. It noted that the principle of merger of orders of inferior courts into those of superior courts would not be affected by distinguishing between a revision petition and an appeal.

The Court further discussed the concept of merger in judgments pronounced by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. It highlighted that once a judgment is pronounced after a full hearing, it replaces the judgment of the lower court, becoming the final judgment to be executed. The Court also emphasized the importance of respecting finality and preventing abuse of process by granting relief through multiple avenues for the same order of the subordinate court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the division bench of the High Court and awarding costs to the appellant.