Constitution of India – Art.227 – Jurisdiction of High Court – Scope of – Eviction petition filed by the appellant-landlady against the respondent-tenant on ground of bona fide need – Petition dismissed by Rent Tribunal – Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Tribunal – High Court restored the order of the Rent Tribunal – Held: High Court while allowing the respondent’s writ petition held that the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant’s appeal with casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need – Having held that, the High Court had two options, either to remand the case to the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits or to decide the matter itself on merits – High Court ought to have resorted to the first option and remanded the case back to the Appellate Tribunal, since it was hearing the matter in its writ jurisdiction u/Art.227 and it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an Appellate Court – High Court committed error in not taking recourse to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal – There was no factual finding recorded on the question of bona fide need – Case remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on merits – Rent Control and Eviction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The need to remand the case to the Rent Appellant Tribunal occasioned because the High Court, while allowing the respondent’s writ petition, came to a conclusion and accordingly held that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant’s appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need. Having held that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter itself on merits in accordance with law. Since the High Court heard the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an Appellate Court. It is for this reason, the High Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 15, 16] [576-A-B]
1.2 The High Court committed error in not taking recourse to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal. This approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide need. [Paras 17, 18] [576-C-D]
1.3 It is for this reason that the finding of the High Court is upheld in relation to the approach and the manner in which the Rent Appellate Tribunal decided the appellant’s appeal but it would be just and proper to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for its decision on merits afresh in accordance with law. Impugned order is modified to the extent that the case is remanded to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 19, 20] [576-E-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.