9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 833 - SC - Indian LawsIllegality in entertaining the joint revision filed against the vacancy order as well as the final order - HELD THAT - The High Court has patently erred in holding, that the revision entertained by the District Judge against the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 along with the final order of release dated 31.5.2007 was not tenable. The learned judge has totally erred in observing, that the order of the High Court dated 23.8.2006 dismissing the writ petition had attained finality since it was not challenged before this Court. The learned judge ought to have taken into consideration, that though the vacancy order was challenged in a writ petition, the High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006, while dismissing the writ petition had reserved the right of the Petitioners (Appellant and proforma Respondent No. 3 herein) before it to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order passed Under Section 16. The observation of the learned judge, that the High Court in its earlier order dated 23.8.2006, could not have granted liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order is also contrary to the settled principles of judicial propriety. This Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 (10) TMI 555 - SUPREME COURT had an occasion to consider the scope of proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This Court found, that though the word 'revision' was not employed in the said proviso, from the language used therein, the legislative intent was clear that the power conferred was revisional power - It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that the High Court while exercising the revisional powers under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 though could not reassess and reappraise the evidence, as if it was exercising appellate jurisdiction, however, it was empowered to reappraise the evidence for the limited purpose so as to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable. The revisional powers conferred upon the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972 are almost analogous with the revisional powers of the High Court that have been interpreted by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. It is found, that the said principles can be aptly made applicable to the revisional powers of the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972. If the said principles are applied to the facts of the present case, it could be seen, that the learned District Judge was fully justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer. In the present case, the approach of the High Court in exercising the jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was totally erroneous - the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court Under Article 227 in the present case was patently unwarranted and unjustified. The order of the High Court dated 26.10.2017 is quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the joint revision filed against the vacancy order and the final order. 2. Interpretation of the law regarding the notification of vacancy under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 3. Scope of revisional powers of the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972. 4. Exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Joint Revision: The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the District Judge committed illegality by entertaining a joint revision against both the vacancy order and the final order. The High Court observed that the earlier order dated 23.8.2006 dismissing the writ petition had not been challenged, thereby precluding the revision against the vacancy order. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court misread the law and facts. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh, which clarified that an order notifying a vacancy could be challenged along with the final order of allotment in a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972. The High Court failed to consider this binding precedent and erroneously held the revision untenable. 2. Interpretation of Law Regarding Notification of Vacancy: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Achal Misra, emphasizing that the notification of vacancy is a preliminary step in the process of making an allotment or release order. It can be challenged in a revision against the final order unless precluded by specific provisions in the Act. The Court noted that the High Court had misunderstood the effect of the decision in Ganpat Roy, which allowed for the challenge of the vacancy notification along with the final order. 3. Scope of Revisional Powers of the District Judge: The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional powers under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972, which allows interference if the District Magistrate acted illegally or with material irregularity. The Court referred to several judgments, including Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, which clarified that revisional powers are limited but can address gross errors or misreading of evidence. The District Judge was justified in interfering with the Rent Controller's order, which misread the evidence and misapplied the law as interpreted in Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad. 4. Exercise of Jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 by converting itself into an appellate court. The High Court's role is to ensure that subordinate courts operate within their authority and follow the law. The High Court's interference was unwarranted as the District Judge's order was based on a correct interpretation of the law and evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only to correct jurisdictional errors or gross miscarriages of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order dated 26.10.2017, and upheld the District Judge's decision to set aside the vacancy order and the final order of release. The Court found that the High Court had misinterpreted the law and facts, and its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 was unjustified.
|
