1996 (3) TMI 544 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Improper exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court leading to eviction of tenant without due process.
2. Appeal court's failure to provide relief to the appellant dispossessed by the writ court's order.
3. Restoration of possession to the appellant after setting aside the writ court's order.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the improper exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court, which resulted in the eviction of the tenant without following the appropriate legal procedures. The Court noted that the writ petition was entertained without proper notice to the tenant, and an ex-parte order was passed swiftly, leading to the police evicting the tenant from the premises. The Court criticized the High Court for intervening in a landlord-tenant dispute through a writ jurisdiction, causing an extraordinary situation and bypassing the established legal processes for resolving such disputes.

2. The appeal court initially set aside the order passed by the writ court but failed to provide any relief to the appellant who had been dispossessed as a consequence of the writ court's order. Despite allowing the appeal, the court did not address the appellant's need to be restored to possession after the writ court's order was overturned. Subsequent applications made by the appellant for relief were rejected by the appeal court, leaving the appellant without a remedy for the wrongful eviction.

3. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, emphasized the principle that an act of the court should not prejudice any party. The Court highlighted the duty of the appeal court to restore the appellant to possession after setting aside the writ court's order. The Court directed the appeal court to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the appellant's identity and ensure his restoration to possession of the disputed premises. Emphasizing the importance of justice, the Court instructed the appeal court to pass appropriate orders after verifying the facts and complying with legal requirements. Additionally, the respondents were directed to pay costs to the appellant as assessed by the Court.