2017 (7) TMI 1414 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction petition - eviction was claimed Under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 inter alia on the ground of bona fide need of the Appellant to start business in the Schedule suit shops - whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent-tenant Under Article 227 of the Constitution and was therefore justified in interfering in the four orders of the Trial Court/Executing Court impugned therein and in consequence justified in remanding the case to the Trial Court for deciding the eviction petition de novo on merits with specific directions to the Trial Court? HELD THAT - There was no case made out on facts or/and in law by the Respondent for entertaining his writ petition and interfere in the orders impugned therein - In the first instance itself the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that since all the 4 orders impugned in the writ petition were amenable to their challenge before the appellate authority the writ petition was not the proper remedy without first filing the appeal and get the same decided by the appellate Court on its merit in accordance with law. The executing Court having seized of the applications filed by the Respondent there was no justification on the part of the High Court to have entertained the writ petition and decided them like an original court. All that the High Court in such circumstances could do was to request the executing Court to dispose of the pending applications (IAs) filed by the Respondent on their respective merits leaving the parties to challenge the orders once passed on such applications by filing appeal before the appellate authorities. It was however not done. Once the possession had been delivered and decree was recorded as satisfied in accordance with law the litigation had come to an end leaving no lis pending. In these circumstances in the absence of any prima facie case having been made out on any jurisdictional issue affecting the very jurisdiction of the Court in passing the eviction decree the High Court should have declined to examine the legality of four orders impugned therein - there was absolutely no case made out by the Respondent on the merits calling any kind of interference by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction Under Article 227 in any of the four orders. The reasons are not far to seek. The Trial Court was fully justified in passing the eviction order on merits on 31.07.2014 against the Respondent. Once the final order had been passed the remedy of the Respondent lies in filing appeal against such order to the appellate Court or apply for its setting aside Under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. The Respondent did not do so within the time prescribed for the reasons best known to him - this is not a case where the Respondent could be held to be unaware of the eviction proceedings pending or/and decided against him nor it was a case holding that he was never afforded any opportunity to contest the eviction proceedings. The High Court failed to see that the High Court curtailed the judicial powers of the Trial Court in passing appropriate order on such applications. The High Court had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Trial Court to pass a particular order by either allowing the application or rejecting it. All that the High Court could do in such case was to remand the case and leave the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders on the application(s) in exercise of its judicial discretion - the impugned order is without jurisdiction the same deserves to be set aside. The eviction matters should be given priority in their disposal at all stages of litigation and especially where the eviction is claimed on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's interference under Article 227.
2. Validity of the eviction order passed by the Trial Court.
3. Execution of the eviction decree and delivery of possession.
4. Respondent's applications for setting aside eviction and redelivery of possession.
5. High Court's directions to the Trial Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the High Court's Interference Under Article 227:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in entertaining the Respondent's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition in limine due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction was improperly exercised, as the Respondent had not exhausted the appellate remedy available to him.

2. Validity of the Eviction Order Passed by the Trial Court:
The eviction order dated 31.07.2014 was deemed valid. The Respondent was aware of the eviction proceedings and had contested them at every stage. The Trial Court was justified in passing the eviction order on merits, as the Respondent failed to appear despite being served notices. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Respondent's absence did not invalidate the eviction proceedings.

3. Execution of the Eviction Decree and Delivery of Possession:
The eviction decree was executed, and possession was delivered to the Appellant in accordance with Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code. The Supreme Court noted that once possession had been delivered and the decree recorded as satisfied, the litigation had effectively ended. The High Court should have recognized this and refrained from intervening.

4. Respondent's Applications for Setting Aside Eviction and Redelivery of Possession:
The Respondent's applications, including those for setting aside the eviction order and seeking redelivery of possession, were found to be an abuse of the court process. The Supreme Court held that these applications were devoid of merit and should have been dismissed by the High Court. The Respondent's failure to contest the proceedings post-remand and his subsequent applications were seen as attempts to delay the process.

5. High Court's Directions to the Trial Court:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for issuing directions to the Trial Court to "allow" specific applications filed by the Respondent. This was seen as an overreach of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as it curtailed the judicial powers of the Trial Court. The High Court should have remanded the case without directing the Trial Court to pass specific orders.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the Respondent's writ petition. The Respondent was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Appellant. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of speedy disposal of eviction cases, especially those involving the landlord's bona fide need.