2018 (9) TMI 2100 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction from suit premises - eviction was claimed inter alia on the ground of unauthorized user of the suit premises by the appellants (defendants) which, according to the respondent (plaintiff), amounted to the change of user under the provision of Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - It is for the reason that the Executing Court had already decided all objections raised by the defendants (appellants) on merits and had found no merit therein. The Revisionary Court was, therefore, under legal obligation to decide the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the Executing Court on its merits in its revisionary jurisdiction instead of remanding the case to the Executing Court. Indeed, we do not find any justifiable reason, which could justify remand having regard to the nature of the objections raised by the defendants (appellants) before the Executing Court. In other words, this was not the case, which needed remand to the Executing Court for its fresh decision on merits. The remand of a case to the Subordinate Court is considered necessary when the Superior Court while exercising its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction finds that the Subordinate Court has failed to decide some material issues arising in the case or there is some procedural lacuna noticed in the trial, which has adversely affected the rights of the parties while prosecuting the suit/proceedings or when some additional evidence is considered necessary to decide the rights of the parties which was not before the Trial Court etc - Such was not the case here. Permission to file additional documents (Ex.22) to prove their case was provided or not - HELD THAT - The documents sought to be filed by the defendants (revision petitioners) were neither relevant and nor material for deciding the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court. The legality and correctness of the order impugned in the revision could be decided one way or the other without the aid of any additional document but on the basis of material already on record keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in several decided cases on the issue in question. Indeed, if the Executing Court could decide the issue finally at its level, the Revisionary Court too could do the same at its level. The High Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue but having regard to the nature of objections, remedy available to the parties to have finding on the question arising in the case one way or the other from the Revisionary Court and to put the record straight, it was not called for in this case - case remanded to the Revisionary Court to decide the defendants (appellants ) revision afresh on merits in accordance with law - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal arising from final judgment of High Court setting aside Small Causes Court order and restoring Executing Court order in eviction suit execution application.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a civil suit for eviction based on unauthorized use of premises, leading to a compromise decree and subsequent execution proceedings.
2. The plaintiff filed an execution application after the defendants failed to hand over possession as per the compromise terms.
3. The Executing Court found the execution application maintainable, leading to possession warrant against the defendants.
4. The defendants challenged this in revision, which was allowed, remanding the case back to the Executing Court.
5. The plaintiff then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which set aside the revisionary court's order and restored the Executing Court's decision.
6. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside both the High Court and revisionary court orders.
7. The Court found errors in the remand by the revisionary court, stating it should have decided the revision on merits instead.
8. Allowing additional documents by the revisionary court was deemed unnecessary as the issue could be decided based on existing records.
9. The Supreme Court emphasized that the revisionary court should have followed established legal principles without remanding the case.
10. The High Court's decision to directly uphold the Executing Court's order was criticized, as it should have remanded the case back to the revisionary court.
11. The case was remanded to the revisionary court to decide the revision afresh within six months, focusing on the merits and legal principles established by previous judgments.