Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 961 (HP)

Madan Lal v. Shammi Sahni

2025-05-09

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the Rent Controller-I, Solan, District Solan, in Rent Petition No.6 of 2018, titled Shammi Sahni vs. Punni Devi, whereby application filed by the present petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code , 1908 for framing additional issues, has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. The present respondent No.1 had filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act , 1987 for eviction of the petitioner and proforma respondents. The said petition was registered as 6/2018. The same had been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. In the same, it had been alleged that the non-residential shop in question had been rented to the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioner, i.e., one Shri Umeda Ram. Since Umeda Ram had died, therefore, all his legal heirs, i.e. petitioner and prforma respondents had been impleaded as party respondents in the aforesaid rent petition. 4. In response to the aforesaid rent petition, the present petitioner had taken a preliminary objection insofar as impleadment of the proforma respondent was concerned. In response so filed to the rent petition, present petitioner had categorically stated that “Bikaneri Bhujia Bhandar” is the tenant of the respondent/landlord, of which the present petitioner is the sole proprietor. 5. During pendency of the aforesaid rent petition bearing No.6/2018, another petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 bearing No.6/2 of 2019 for eviction of the present petitioner had been filed by the present respondent on the ground of arrears of rent. In the latter petition so filed for eviction, only the present petition was arrayed as the sole respondent/sole tenant. The same was based on the response filed by the present petition in the previous rent petition bearing No.6/2018, wherein eviction was being sought on the ground of bona fide requirement. The petition so filed for eviction on account of arrears of rent was compromised vide order dated 20.02.2020 before the trial Court. As in the same, the present petitioner had deposited the entire arrears of rent to the satisfaction of the present respondent/landlord. 6. The petition so filed for eviction on account of arrears of rent was compromised vide order dated 20.02.2020 before the trial Court. As in the same, the present petitioner had deposited the entire arrears of rent to the satisfaction of the present respondent/landlord. 6. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the present petitioner filed an application seeking amendment in the reply filed to the rent petition bearing No.6/2018. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. However, vide order dated 18.07.2023, passed by this Court, in CMPMO No.237 of 2022, titled Madan Lal vs. Shammi Sahni and others, the amendment was allowed. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, by way of an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code , framing of additional issue in the following terms was sought by the present petitioner:- “(i) Whether the rent petition No.6/2 of 2019, titled as “Ms Shammi Sahni versus Sh. Madan Lal” decided on 20.02.2020 renders the the presetn rent petition as not maintainable in the eyes of law as alleged?....OPR” 8. Reply thereto was filed by the respondent. Post hearing the parties vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024, the appliation filed for framing of additional issue by the present petitioner was dismissed. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that in the rent petition pending adjducation before the trial Court (bearing No.6/2018) on 08.01.2020, issue No.2 has been framed as under:- “Issue No.2 Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR” 10. In view of the framing of the said issue, the trial Court has correctly observed that the entire issue of maintainability of the rent petition bearing No.6/2018 is covered in the same. 11. In terms of Order 8 Sub Rule 2, principles whereof apply to rent proceedings, respondent in his reply must raise by his pleadings all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable. Since by virtue of judgment dated 18.07.2023, passed by this Court, in CMPMO No.237 of 2022, titled Madan Lal vs. Shammi Sahni and others, the petitioner has been permitted to amend his reply and incorporate therein necessary pleadings qua filing of the subsequent rent petition bearing No.6/2 of 2019, it is for the present petitioner/tenant to show as to how the Rent Petition No.6/2018 is not maintainable on account of the same. The plea of maintainability is a generic expression which includes within it a numerous species. The plea sought to be raised by the present petitioner/tenant is one such specie. 12. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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. 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 re-appreciate, 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 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.” 13. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. 14. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. 16. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14.05.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.