2001 (11) TMI 1015 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.
3. Execution of Eviction Orders and Extension of Time for Deposit of Arrears of Rent.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
The High Court of Kerala assumed jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which had confirmed the Rent Control Court's dismissal of the tenants' application u/s 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. The High Court impliedly held that the exercise of powers under Article 227 was akin to revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is not an original proceeding but a revisional jurisdiction, to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where subordinate courts and tribunals have erroneously assumed jurisdiction or failed to exercise it, resulting in grave injustice.

2. Compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965:
The tenants failed to deposit the arrears of rent within the stipulated time as required u/s 11(2)(c) of the Act. Despite multiple opportunities and extensions, the tenants did not comply with the statutory requirements. The Rent Control Court, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority all found the tenants in default. The High Court's assumption that the petition under Article 227 was an extension of appeal or revisional powers under the Act was incorrect. The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings under Article 227 do not automatically authorize the court to extend the time for deposit of arrears of rent.

3. Execution of Eviction Orders and Extension of Time for Deposit of Arrears of Rent:
The eviction order against the tenants became executable on 3rd February 1985, and in no case beyond 7th July 1987. The tenants' application for extension of time for deposit of rent was dismissed, and no further action was taken. The Supreme Court noted that the Rent Control Act is a social welfare legislation meant to protect tenants but does not confer unfettered powers to remain in possession despite non-compliance with court directions or statutory provisions. The tenants failed to pay the arrears of rent at all three relevant times, disqualifying them from any discretionary relief under Article 227.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and upholding the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities against the tenants. The High Court's liberal assumption of powers without reference to the facts of the case was unwarranted, and the tenants were not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution. No costs were awarded.