2019 (12) TMI 1674 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction of the Appellant tenant Under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act - whether Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India, by reason of lack of legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State legislature to enact the provision? - HELD THAT - A law made Under Article 323B(1) of the Constitution may exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Under Article 136 with respect to the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunals. However, Article 323B(2) (d) or any other provision of the Constitution does not enable the State Legislature to enact law which provides for statutory appeals to the Supreme Court. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act purports to confer a right of statutory Second Appeal to the Supreme Court. Even in case of concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal, where no serious question of law were involved, an appeal would have to be entertained and decided. Such a provision which mandates the Supreme Court to consider an appeal is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, as argued by the learned Attorney General. Article 200 as observed does not and cannot validate an ultra vires enactment, which the concerned Legislature lacked competence to enact. Article 138(2) of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court - A special agreement means, an independent agreement arrived at between the Government of India and the Government of a State through deliberations and negotiations and not just an approval of legislation by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In any case, the Supreme Court may exercise further jurisdiction pursuant to a special agreement between the Government of India and the State Government on any particular issue, provided Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court. Parliament has not enacted any such law enabling the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction in respect of a subject matter agreed upon between the Government of India and the State Government. Article 138(2) is not attracted. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of law. The State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act - Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act declared ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and of no effect.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act.
2. Constitutionality of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act.
3. Interpretation of Articles 138(2) and 200 of the Constitution of India.
4. Impact of Presidential assent on legislative competence.
5. Scope of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Issue 1: Legislative Competence of Chhattisgarh State Legislature to Enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act

The primary issue was whether the Chhattisgarh State Legislature had the legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, which provided for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. The Court examined the relevant entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, specifically Entry 77 of List I (Union List), Entry 65 of List II (State List), and Entry 46 of List III (Concurrent List). It was determined that Entry 77 confers exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament to legislate on the constitution, organization, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court. Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List explicitly exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Therefore, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature exceeded its legislative powers by enacting Section 13(2).

Issue 2: Constitutionality of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act

The Court held that Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, which allowed for direct appeals to the Supreme Court, was unconstitutional. The Constitution does not provide for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from orders of a Tribunal constituted under a State law. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and powers are derived from Articles 131 to 145 of the Constitution, and any expansion of this jurisdiction must be legislated by Parliament, not a State Legislature. The Court concluded that Section 13(2) was beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature and thus ultra vires the Constitution.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Articles 138(2) and 200 of the Constitution of India

The Court examined the arguments regarding Articles 138(2) and 200 of the Constitution. Article 138(2) allows for the Supreme Court to have further jurisdiction and powers if both the Government of India and the Government of a State agree, and if Parliament enacts a law to that effect. The Court clarified that a special agreement under Article 138(2) requires an independent agreement between the Government of India and the State Government, not just Presidential assent. Article 200 requires the Governor to reserve certain Bills for the President’s consideration if they derogate from the powers of the High Court. However, Presidential assent does not validate a law that is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

Issue 4: Impact of Presidential Assent on Legislative Competence

The Court emphasized that Presidential assent under Article 200 does not confer legislative competence on a State Legislature. Even if a Bill receives Presidential assent, it cannot validate an enactment that is beyond the legislative powers of the State Legislature. The Court cited the decision in K.K. Poonacha v. State of Karnataka, which held that Presidential assent does not grant immunity from challenges based on legislative competence or constitutional violations.

Issue 5: Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136

The Court distinguished between the appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 and the statutory appellate jurisdiction. Article 136 confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal, which is not equivalent to a regular statutory appeal. The power under Article 136 is exercised in cases involving substantial questions of law or public importance, and not as a matter of right. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, by providing for a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court, was found to be inconsistent with the discretionary nature of Article 136.

Conclusion:

The Court declared Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act ultra vires the Constitution, null, and void. The Chhattisgarh State Legislature lacked the competence to enact a provision that affected the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The judgment reaffirmed that legislative competence must be in accordance with the Constitution, and any expansion of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction must be legislated by Parliament.