Mahendra Kaur Arora vs HDFC Bank Ltd

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

8 May 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeals No. 6096-6097 of 2017

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hima Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 280 : 2024 INSC 432

Acts & Sections

Constitution

Issue for consideration

In a petition u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Single Judge upheld the order passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal by which the decree passed in favour of the appellant-landlady by the Rent Tribunal was set aside and counter claim filed by the respondentBank seeking refund of the security amount was allowed. Appellant filed intra court appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable.

Headnote

Lease Agreement – Respondent-Bank terminated the lease agreement by issuing three months’ notice in terms of clause 6 thereof – However, did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the appellant-landlady and continued occupying it – As per the appellant, the respondent also did not pay the use and occupation charges in respect of the subject premises, after adjusting the security deposit towards the rent payable for three months – Application filed by appellant seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by Rent Tribunal, counter claim filed by the respondent was rejected – Appeal filed by respondent, allowed by Appellate Rent Tribunal – Appellant filed petition u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, dismissed by Single Judge – Appellant filed intra court appeal, dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable:

Held: Language of Clause 6 of the Agreement made it abundantly clear that the respondent-Bank was liable to refund of the deposit amount contemporaneous to removing itself from the leased premises and handing over vacant possession thereof to the appellant and giving charge thereof to her, which procedure was not followed – Impugned order passed by Single Judge not sustainable – However, order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is maintained for the reason that no intra-court appeal could have been preferred by the appellant against an order passed by the Single Judge on a petition filed u/Article 227, Constitution of India – Judgment passed by Rent Tribunal restored and the decree passed in favour of the appellant upheld. [Paras 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Order passed in proceedings u/Article 227, maintainability of intra-court appeal:

Held: No intra-court appeal can be preferred against an order passed by Single Judge on a petition filed u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 11]

Order 1. The appellant-landlady is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th July, 2015 passed by the Division Bench1 as also the order dated 09th January, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, preferred by her under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant-owner of a commercial premises at Vashistha Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur had leased out a part of the said premises3 to the respondent-Bank for a period of nine years in terms of the lease agreement date

View Subscription Plans →