2003 (7) TMI 708 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement - suit in favour of the landlord - validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act - HELD THAT - It is undisputed that the application for amendment was filed on 7.1.2003 and related to constitutional validity of Section 3(l)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The High Court granted leave to amend. Though the High Court has not clearly stated so in the order in the contextual backdrop the same has great relevance. It is fairly settled position in law that Court or Tribunal constituted under a statute cannot adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of the concerned statute. This position has been highlighted by this Court in several decisions. Great emphasis was laid on Sec. 113 CPC by Mr. Nariman to con end that had the stand been taken before Courts below in case of necessity the provision could have been resorted to. It is not however necessary to go into the question whether having not taken the plea before the courts below the High Court should have permitted the question to be raised before it as admittedly the High Court had permitted the challenge to be made by allowing the application for amendment. The case was disposed of on the date the amendment was allowed and in fact by the consolidated order which dealt with the prayer for amendment allowed it and went on to dispose of the writ petition without dealing with plea of invalidity. In the aforesaid factual background High Court should have considered the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 3(l)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act as raised by the appellant. It can certainly consider the effect of any earlier decision. We do not express any opinion on that aspect The order of the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, constitutional challenge, amendment of writ petition, and the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider constitutional validity.

Validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act:
The appellant, a nationalized bank, was a tenant under the respondents. The landlords sought eviction under Section 13(l)(g) of the Bombay Rents Act, which was decreed in their favor by the trial court. However, the Small Causes Court allowed the bank's appeal, citing the interest of the common man. Subsequently, the landlords filed a suit under the Maharashtra Rent Act seeking possession of the premises. The Small Causes Court ruled in favor of the landlords, leading to appeals and a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition after allowing an amendment challenging the validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered the constitutional challenge raised by the appellant and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication.

Constitutional Challenge and Amendment of Writ Petition:
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The High Court allowed an amendment to the writ petition but dismissed it without examining the constitutional question. The appellant argued that the High Court should have considered the challenge to the provision, especially after allowing the amendment. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of addressing constitutional challenges and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh adjudication.

Jurisdiction of the High Court to Consider Constitutional Validity:
The High Court, while allowing an amendment to the writ petition, did not delve into the constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The appellant contended that the High Court should have considered the constitutional challenge raised, as permitted by the amendment. The Supreme Court highlighted the significance of addressing constitutional issues and directed the High Court to reexamine the matter on its merits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication on the constitutional challenge to Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act.