Dipali Dey(Baxi) vs Mira Das

Dipali Dey (Baxi) ....Appellant VERSUS

Mira Das ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In our view, the High Court had acted in excess of

its jurisdiction by interfering with the concurrent

orders passed by the courts below allowing an

application for injunction directing the respondent

to restore the electric supply in the suit premises in

favour of the appellant who is a divorcee residing in

the same with her son. The suit that has been filed

by the appellant is for declaration that she is a

tenant in respect of the premises in question at a

1 rental of Rs.150/- per month. The case made out in

the plaint is, inter alia, to the effect that she has

been paying the rent but no rent receipts had been

granted to her. Since the electric supply was

disconnected by the respondent, she filed an

application for injunction directing the respondent

to restore the electric supply in her tenanted

premises. Both the courts below concurrently

allowed the application and directed restoration of

electric supply to the tenanted premises where the

appellant is residing. Against these orders, a

revision was moved by the respondent which was

allowed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the

order of the High Court, the appellant has come up

before this Court by way of a special leave petition,

which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence

of learned counsel for the parties.

3. In our view, as noted herein earlier, the High Court

was not justified in interfering with the concurrent

orders passed by the Courts below directing the

landlord to restore the electric supply in the suit

2 premises. The question whether the appellant is a

tenant or not shall be gone into at the time of

disposal of the suit when the evidence would be

produced by the parties in support of their

respective cases. Since there is no dispute that the

appellant is in possession of the suit premises

claiming to be a tenant, the electric supply to the

premises in question should be restored. Therefore,

the High Court, in the exercise of its power under

Article 227 of the Constitution ought not to have

interfered with the concurrent orders of the Courts

below. (See: The Managing Director (MIG)

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyd. And

Anr. Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase

and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,

Balanagar, Hyd. [AIR 1973 SC 76].

4. That being the position, the impugned order is set

aside and the orders passed by the courts below are

restored. However, considering the facts and

circumstances of the present case, we direct that

3 Suit No.150/2001 and eviction suit being

T.S.No.166 of 2001 filed by the respondent, both

pending in the same court, shall be disposed of

within six months from the date of supply of a copy

of this order to the trial court without granting any

unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set

aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

above. There will be no order as to costs.

..................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

New Delhi; ................................J. July 14, 2009. [ R.M. LODHA ]

4