9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are delay condonation, permission to appear in person, jurisdiction of Small Cause Court, arrears of rent, sub-letting, review petition, recall application, reconsideration application, scandalous allegations, transfer of property, fraud allegations, title dispute, summary trial procedure, res judicata, jurisdiction of civil court, maintainability of petition, limited jurisdiction of Small Cause Court, and consistency of orders. Delay Condonation and Permission to Appear in Person: The Supreme Court allowed the application for permission to appear in person and argue, after condoning the delay. The petitioner raised scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations against the former Chief Justice and advocates, leading to dismissal of the Review Petition and subsequent applications. Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court and Arrears of Rent: The Small Cause Court decreed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, and restoration of items against the defendants. The High Court upheld the decree, confirming jurisdiction to entertain the suit and validity of notice under Section 106 of TP Act regarding arrears of rent. Sub-letting and Transfer of Property: The defendants denied sub-letting and claimed reduction in rent due to plaintiffs' occupation of property. The petitioner challenged transfer of property without lawful possession, leading to refusal by the trial court to investigate alleged fraud involving property transfer. Review Petition and Subsequent Applications: The Review Petition and subsequent applications were dismissed by the High Court, with the Recall Application being termed as having no legal basis. The Reconsideration Application was also dismissed for not being maintainable in law. Title Dispute and Summary Trial Procedure: The Small Cause Court refused to frame an issue on title dispute, citing limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed that the issue of title cannot be adjudicated by Small Cause Court and must be decided by a competent civil court. Res Judicata and Consistency of Orders: The finding on title by Small Cause Court does not operate as res judicata, necessitating adjudication by a competent civil court. The Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment, stating that contradictory orders on the same subject matter are not permitted by law. The petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, with the Supreme Court affirming the decisions of the lower courts and rejecting the petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations and challenges to the property transfer and title disputes.
|
