9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the impugned order giving rise to filing of this appeal by the landlord by way of special leave before this Court. 4. The Appellant is the owner/landlord of eight Schedule suit shops details of which are specified in the eviction petition. The Respondent is in possession of one shop out of eight shops as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The remaining seven shops were in occupation of other tenants at all relevant time. 5. The Appellant filed one eviction petition (OP(RC) No. 3/2006) before the Rent Controlling Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") against his 8 tenants, which included the present Respondent herein also. The eviction was claimed Under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") inter alia on the ground of bona fide need of the Appellant to start business in the Schedule suit shops. The Appellant filed the eviction petition through his power of attorney holder. All the tenants including the Respondent herein entered appearance and filed their written statements. They denied the material averments made in eviction petition. 6. By order dated 13.08.2007, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restoring the eviction petition directed the Appellant (petitioner) to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- by way of cost to the tenants (Respondents) and Rs. 2000/- to the District Legal Services Authority within 15 days failing which the appeal was to be dismissed. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28.02.2014 to enable the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of the eviction petition and conclude the same at an early date. 13. After remand of the eviction petition to the Trial Court, though there was no need to again issue notice to the parties for their appearance for the reason that the appellate Court had already fixed the date for the appearance of the parties before the Trial Court on 28.02.2014, yet the Trial Court in its judicial discretion directed issuance of fresh notice to all the parties to the eviction petition for their appearance and the case was accordingly fixed for 27.03.2014. 14. On 27.03.2014, the case was adjourned for 02.06.2014 and then to 10.07.2014. On 10.07.2014, none appeared for the tenants (8 in number) despite service to them and hence the Trial Court proceeded to record evidence of the Petitioner (Appellant) and heard the argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) and prayed therein that the eviction order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Court be set aside on the ground that the tenants were neither put to notice nor were heard before the order was passed. An application (IA 790/2015) for condonation of delay of 180 days in filing the application for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2014 was also filed. Another application (IA791/2015) was filed by the Respondent seeking therein a prayer for redelivery of the shop to him. 20. During pendency of these applications made by the Respondent and before any order could be passed by the Trial Court/Executing Court, the Respondent approached the High Court Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in writ petition and questioned the legality and correctness of four orders of the Trial Court/Executing Court. These orders were: (1) eviction order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Trial Court (2) order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Executing Court which had directed taking of delivery of suit shops (3) delivery report dated 25.03.2015 filed by the bailiff and (4) order dated 26.03.2015 of the Executing Court closing the Execution Case No. 60/2014. 21. The High Court allowed the writ petition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial leave before this Court. 23. Heard Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., learned Counsel for the Respondent. 24. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition filed by the Respondent out of which this appeal arises. 25. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is 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? 26. In our considered opinion, the detailed facts mentioned supra would clearly reveal that the High Court not only erred in entertaining the Respondent's writ petition but also erred in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction by interfering in the orders impugned therein. 27. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst such action in these proceedings. 33. In our considered view, 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. 34. Apart from what is held supra, we are of the considered opinion that 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. 35. It is not in dispute that the Respondent was aware of the eviction proceedings because he had been contesting the proceedings since inception at every stage in the Trial Court and then in appeals. It is also not in dispute that it was at his instance, the appellate Court had remanded the case to the Trial Court by order dated 28.01.2014 and fixed the date for the parties to appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of his advocate (pages 51-52 of SLP counter affidavit Para 5), there was no reason for the High Court to have doubted the sworn testimony of the Appellant and his advocate on this issue. It should have been accepted by the High Court for want of anything said by the Respondent in rebuttal except denying. 41. In the light of what we have held above, there was, in our view, neither any basis nor any justifiable reason for the High Court to have directed holding of any factual inquiry into the question of payment of cost. The directions to hold an inquiry on this issue is, therefore, wholly illegal and uncalled for. 42. We are also of the considered opinion that the applications filed by the Respondent for setting aside of the eviction orders dated 31.07.2014, 19.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 and application for condonation of delay in filing such applications and lastly, an application filed for giving redelivery of suit shop were in the nature of abusing the process of the Court and were liable to be dismissed which unfortunately the High Court failed to do so and went on to entertain such applications. 43. We also find that while issuing impugned directions, the High Court again exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
