Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 364 (HP)

Surender Kumar v. Pankaj Bansal

2024-12-06

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. Present petition has been filed aggrieved by impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller- I, Solan, District Solan, HP in rent Petition No.23/2 of 2014, titled Pankaj Bansal & Anr. Vs. Surender Kumar & Anr., whereby an application under Order 14 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issues has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the petition, documents appended thereto and examined the impugned order. 3. Rent petition, in the case at hand, has been filed on the ground of subletting and bona fide requirement. Issues, in the case at hand, were framed in the year 2015. Subsequent to the framing of the issues, the witnesses of the landlord were examined and even one witness on behalf of the tenant had been examined by the trial Court. At that stage an application was filed for framing of additional issues. The said application was filed on 22.09.2023 i.e. after about 8 years of framing of issues. 4. While deciding a rent petition, the following well-settled principles enumerated by the Apex Court in judgment reported as 2018 (2) SCC 352 , titled Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. need to be kept in mind. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 11.1 First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2 Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord has sought defendant’s-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds. 11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds. 11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal) 11.4 Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee). 11.5 Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (See-Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue) 5. Keeping in view the above stated principles in the pending rent petition in the case at hand all relevant issues which arise for consideration have been framed. 6. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. 6. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 7. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524 , it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181 , it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 8. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has restrictive and limited jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 9. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has restrictive and limited jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 9. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller-I, Solan, District Solan on 05.09.2024 and there is no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out, in the case at hand. 10. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit and so also the pending application(s), if any.