Jai Singh & Ors vs M.C.D. & Anr

Jai Singh and Ors. .. Appellants

VERSUS

Municipal Corporation of Delhi ..Respondents and Anr.

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8234 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.1925 of 2008]

Municipal Corporation of Delhi .. Appellant

VERSUS

Sh. Jai Singh and Ors. ..Respondents

JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. In this special leave petition, the petitioners have

challenged the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of 2

India, CM (M) No.516 of 2007, dated 23rd March, 2009,

whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside the

order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal

["ARCT" for short] dated 12th March, 2001, upholding the

order passed by the Additional Rent Controller ["ARC" for

brevity].

2. Heard counsel. Leave granted.

The facts, as noticed by the High Court, are that the

appellants are claiming themselves to be the landlords in

respect of premises constructed on the plot of land No.2,

Block B, transport area of Jhandewalan Estate, Desh

Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

3. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the

premises were let out to respondent No.2, Delhi

Transport Corporation [for short "DTC"], on a monthly

rental of Rs.3500/-. DTC has sublet/assigned the

premises in favour of respondent No.1, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi [for short "MCD"] and parted with 3

possession in favour of MCD without the written consent

of the appellants. Therefore, both DTC and MCD were

liable for eviction. The High Court has noticed the

sequence of events since the transport services were

being run by Gwalior Northern India Transport Company

(for short "GNIT") to the time when DTC stepped into its

shoes. The appellants claimed that the tenancy of the

premises was with DTC. MCD had, however, claimed

that the legal possession was retained by MCD; rent was

being paid by MCD to DTC.

4. The ARC by an order dated 11th November, 1989,

upon consideration of the rival contentions, held:

"19. Admittedly it is respondent No.2 (MCD) who is in possession of the premises in question. It is also admitted that respondent No.2 (MCD) pays a sum of Rs.3500/- as rent to respondent No.1 (DTC) by way of cheques. It is not the case of the respondent that any written consent of the petitioners was obtained in this regard. Therefore, it has to be held that respondent no.1 (DTC) has either sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenanted premises illegally to respondent No.2 (MCD). It is well settled that in voluntarily (sic) transfers are also included 4

with the meaning of sub-letting etc. in Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act.".

5. The order passed by the ARC was upheld by the

ARCT with the following observations:

"15. After having heard up the matter in all its possible aspects I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding of the learned trial court by holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and since the exclusive possession of the premises was handed over by the erstwhile tenant to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, i.e., respondent No.2 which is itself a separate and independent legal entity, it amounts to sub- letting."

6. The High Court set aside the concurrent findings

recorded by the ARC and ARCT with the following

observations:

"The orders passed by learned ARC and the learned ARCT categorically show that neither the learned ARC nor learned ARCT has devolved upon the facts of the case and nor had even considered the concept of tenancy and sub tenancy in this case in the peculiar circumstances of this case."

5 7. The High Court held that this is not a case of sub-

letting as Delhi Transport Services (for short "DTS"),

Delhi Transport Undertaking (for short "DTU"), MCD and

DTC were the creation of statute. The premises had

come to them after it was acquired by Union of India

(UOI) from GNIT on nationalization of the business.

There was no parting with possession by DTC to MCD,

therefore, it was not sub-letting. The DTC was

incorporated in lieu of DTU as a separate company to

facilitate running of transport business. Mere payment

of Rs.3500/- per month by MCD to DTC does not show

sub-letting or parting with possession. Relying on a

judgment of this Court in Madras Bangalore Transport

Co. [West] Vs. Inder Singh & Ors. [AIR 1986 SC 1564],

the High Court has held that:

"In the case in hand, the situation, is much better. The alleged original tenant GNIT stood acquired by a Legislative Act and the premises went to DTS. DTS was converted to DTU and DTU was further converted into DTC. The premises remained in occupation of the same entity which changed its form from one to 6

another. Thus it cannot be said that it was a case of sub-letting under any circumstances. The orders passed by learned ARC and learned ARTC are liable to be set aside for non application of law and non consideration of facts at all."

8. The objection raised by the appellants to the

entertainment of the petition under Article 227, on the

ground of laches, has been rejected with the following

observations:

"The respondent in this case has strongly objected to entertaining the petition on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of this power, interfering with the orders of the Court of Tribunal has to be done where this Court finds that there was a serious dereliction of duty and blatant violation of the fundamental principles of law and justice and where, the order caused grave injustice and needs to be corrected. Although the petitioner herein had not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal below but that cannot prevent his Court from correcting the patent illegality writ large on the face of the orders of the ARC and Tribunal below. Both the ARC and ARCT passed orders without considering the facts of the case in a very mechanical manner. Neither the learned ARC nor learned ARCT had taken into account the sequence of facts brought before them regarding acquisition of the entire assets of GNIT and conversion of DTS to DTU and then to DTC by the Legislative Act and the order has 7

been passed merely on the ground that amount of Rs.3500/- was being remitted by the MCD to DTC. The Courts below did not even consider the issue as to who was the tenant and how MCD became the sub-tenant of respondent once the premises was owned by Union of India and the leasehold rights of the entire land vested in Union of India. This Court can set aside the findings and the orders of the Tribunal below if there was no evidence at all to justify the findings and the findings were perverse. The order can also be set aside if no reasonable or prudent person can possibly come to such a conclusion despite the fact that the petition was not brought before this Court by the petitioner soon after the passing of the order. In Badlu and another Vs. Shiv Charan and Others [(1980) 4 SCC 401], Supreme Court observed that the delay caused in prosecuting the case in bona fide and good faith in wrong court due to mistake of law or facts can be condoned, I, therefore, consider that petition is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, nor learned ARCT was justified in dismissing the application. Learned ARCT went wrong in dismissing the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. The order of learned ARCT on this count also is liable to set aside. It is ordered accordingly."

9. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellants submits :

1. The exercise of power under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, by the High 8

Court, in the peculiar facts of this case

was improper.

2. The petition was liable to be dismissed on

the ground of delay and laches alone.

3. Even otherwise, the High Court exceeded

its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate

court.

4. The High Court erroneously decided the

question of ownership of the premises

which was not even an issue in the

proceedings, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

5. Even on facts, the findings are contrary to

the material on record.

10. On the other hand, Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the

High Court was fully justified in exercising its jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the

patent, factual and legal errors committed by ARC and 9

ARCT. She has emphasised the entire history of

transformation of GNIT into DTC. According to the

learned counsel, there was no landlord and tenant

relationship between the predecessor of the appellants

and GNIT. The payment of Rs.3500/- per month was a

misnomer. The plot vested in the Government under the

agreement dated 23rd April, 1948, therefore, GNIT was

incompetent to transfer any perpetual lease to Bharat

Singh. The amount of Rs.3500/- was being paid to

Bharat Singh as compensation for the amount spent by

him on behalf of GNIT for construction of the depot. She

further submits that the land vested in DDA, i.e.,

Government. Therefore, Rent Controller had no

jurisdiction. In any case, the appellants have failed to

prove that there has been any parting with possession,

without the written consent of the landlord. The ARC and

ARCT ignored vital documents in concluding that there

has been subletting by DTC to MCD. In fact, MCD has

retained the legal possession all along. The payment of

Rs.3500/- was only being routed through DTC, as a 10

matter of convenience. On the question of delay and

laches, it is submitted that the High Court had converted

the RCSA to a petition under Article 227. The delay has

been condoned as the MCD had been bona fide pursuing

the wrong legal remedy. The High Court in a petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had the

jurisdiction to undo the injustice caused to the MCD by

the orders of ARC and ARCT. In support of her

submissions, learned counsel relied on a number of

judgments of this Court, viz. , on subletting: Resham

Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh & Anr. [1999 (7) SCC 263];

Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Coropration of

India [1998 (3) SCC 1] and on jurisdiction of the High

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estates (P) Ltd. 2001 (8)

SCC 97.

11. Mr. Ahmad, in reply submits that the sub-tenant

DTC, cannot be permitted to plead a case which even the

tenant could not have pleaded.

11

12. We have anxiously considered the submissions of

the learned counsel.

13. Before we consider the factual and legal issues

involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized

principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the

High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the

jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well

as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the

powers vested in them, within the bounds of their

authority. The High Court has the power and the

jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with

well established principles of law. The High Court is

vested with the powers of superintendence and/or

judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or

appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this

Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of 12

India. It is, however, well to remember the well known

adage that greater the power, greater the care and

caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore,

expected to exercise such wide powers with great care,

caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction

must be within the well recognized constraints. It can not

be exercised like a `bull in a china shop', to correct all

errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within

the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction

can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed

in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of

fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court

cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and

re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not

substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions

reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi

judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence

would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations

where grave injustice would be done unless the High

Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power 13

would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the

sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of

justice.

14. In our opinion, the High Court in this case, has

traveled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution. Both ARC and ARCT had acted

within the limits of the jurisdiction vested in them. The

conclusions reached cannot be said to be based on no

evidence. All relevant material has been taken into

consideration. Therefore, there was hardly any

justification for the High Court to undertake an

investigation into issues which did not even arise in the

lis.

15. The appellants had filed a simple eviction petition

before the ARC, under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (in short "DRC Act"). They had stated

that DTC was their tenants in premises as the entire plot

No.2 with the construction thereon at Jhandewalan 14

known as Karol Bagh Depot, as per plan attached.

Monthly rent was stated to be Rs.3500/-. It was claimed

that DTC has sublet the premises to MCD, without

permission of the landlord. Therefore, both DTC and

MCD were liable for eviction.

16. Both DTC and MCD took identical pleas. Their

defence was that the appellants are neither the owners

nor the landlords of the demised premises. They claimed

that Late Bharat Singh (LBS) had agreed to construct the

depot for and on behalf of GNIT. He was receiving

Rs.3500/- p.m. for the money spent on construction.

Therefore, the term rent is a misnomer. Allegations of

subletting were denied. The business of GNIT was

nationalized and taken over by the government vide

agreement dated 23rd April, 1948. The plot was mutated

in the name of Government of India. Thereafter, Delhi

Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, was enforced.

Under this Act, Delhi Transport Services (DTS) was

established. From then the onward DTS was in 15

occupation and started paying the rent of Rs.3500/- till

the enactment of DMC Act, 1957. Under this Act, the

transport service in Delhi was given to Delhi Transport

Undertaking (DTU), which was made a wing of MCD.

Since then MCD started releasing Rs.3500/- to LBS

through its wing, DTU. After the death of LBS, the

amount has been paid to the appellants, without any

objection. On passing of Delhi Road Transport Laws

(Amendment) Act, 1971, Delhi Transport Corporation,

came into existence as a statutory body. But the

possession of the demised premises remained with MCD.

As DTC had taken the place of DTU, the rent amount,

thereafter, was routed through DTC. Therefore, there was

no subletting. In any event, since the property vests in

Government of India, Delhi Rent Control Act would not

be applicable.

17. Taking into consideration the aforesaid claims of the

parties, the ARC concluded that there is no dispute with

regard to construction and ownership of the depot by 16

LBS. The appellants are successors of LBS. The issues as

crystallized by the ARC are as follows:-

"(i) The tenant has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession.

(ii) It may be in respect of the whole or any part of the premises.

(iii) Such subletting etc has taken place on or after the 9th day of June, 1952.

(iv) Such subletting etc has taken place without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.

(v) The first and the foremost ground that requires to be seen is whether

relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the petitioners and respondent No.1 or not."

Thereafter in Para 9 ARC observes :-

"Whether relationship of landlord and tenant was contemplated or not is the most important fact which has to be seen."

18. Thereafter, ARC proceeds to consider the implications

of the agreement dated 10th November, 1944, wherein

LBS agreed to develop the plot of land. He is referred

to as the prospective purchaser. The lease with GNIT

was provided for, LBS was to pay all taxes. GNIT had 17

to pay 10% p.a. of the entire cost of the building.

GNIT were to execute a ten year lease. Rent of

Rs.3500/- was regularly paid. The ARC noticed that

Government of India had moved the Rent Controller,

New Delhi for fixation of fair rent in June, 1950. The

Rent Controller, after conducting an enquiry had fixed

the agreed rent as the fair rent. An appeal against the

order of Rent Controller, New Delhi dated 26th

December, 1950 was dismissed by the learned District

Judge at Delhi by an order dated 3.5.1951. Not only

this, ARC notices that during the course of present

proceedings, rent was deposited in court for the period

1.4.93 to 30.11.93, by DTC. Therefore, they can not

now be permitted to say that MCD is the tenant, in

possession. In such circumstances, the ARC held that

DTC has sublet the premises to MCD.

19. Thereafter, MCD challenged the aforesaid order

before the ARCT in RCA No.9 of 2001. The aforesaid

appeal was beyond limitation by 431 days. It 18

appears that even though the ARCT did not find any

substance in the reasons given by the MCD for

seeking condonation of delay, the appeal was still

considered on merits. ARCT discussed at length the

negligent attitude of the MCD in pursuing the

proceedings in the court of ARC. Ultimately, the

ARC was left with no alternative but to proceed

against the MCD ex-parte on 25th of August, 1999.

It was observed by the ARCT that the delay was

wholly unjustified as well as wholly unexplained.

We may notice the observations made by the ARCT

which are as follows:

"Now, looking to the appellant's stand through another angle, I find that the appellant and respondent/DTC are both governmental organization and it does not stand to mind that respondent/DTC or its representative would not intimate the appellant/MCD about its not being represented to some advocate or about its having been proceeded ex-parte. The case was admittedly on last state and it appears that the appellant took chance and stayed out of the scene and has now come up with this hopelessly delayed appeal with a cock and bull story which does not seem to be any way bonafide, reasonable and acceptable to mind. Strangely enough, the appellant even did not disclose in the application as to on 19

which date or month, the court bailiff had gone to the demises premises, and this lengthy delay of about 431 days (or 393 days after excluding the time taken in obtaining the certified copies) has remained completely unexplained. The application for seeking condonation of delay, thus, is found to be without any sufficient or reasonable ground and needs to be dismissed. Order as such with the dismissal of the appellant is application for condonation of delay - this appeal meets the same fate."

Having observed as such, the ARCT considered

the appeal on merits on the assumption that the

application of MCD for condonation of delay has been

allowed, though it had not been allowed. The ARCT

thereafter considered the entire gamut of facts and

circumstances in detail. The ARCT noticed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the MCD

and considered each submission in detail.

20. It was submitted that ARC had failed to distinguish

the three expressions: sublet, assigned and otherwise

parted with possession. This was answered as follows:

"I feel that the submissions made by learned counsel Sh.Chachra do not gather any support 20

from the records because the learned ARC has dealt with insufficient details of the needed requirements and it was only thereafter that he came to a conclusion of the respondent/DTC having sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the demised premises in favour of this appellant. For attracting the applicability of a ground of eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, it has either to be direct circumstance of subletting which ordinarily may not be possible to be detected since it is, in most cases, a secret deal between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant or it is the assignment where under the tenant has to divest himself of all the rights that he had as a tenant or parting with possession which circumstances postulates the parting with legal possession also i.e. the tenant surrenders his legal right of are-entry to the premises. This mischief of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is complete if any of the three expressions gets established. It is certainly no necessary and nor has it been so held by any of the pronouncements of any superior courts that pleadings on this aspect must state in specific terms that it either sublet or assignment or parting with possession. In case a party succeeds in establishing the first expression sublet the to my mind. It goes to establish that even the other two expressions assignment and parting with possession stand proved because the moment a tenant indulge a third person as his tenant (sub-tenant) qua the demised premises-he (tenant) squarely assigns and also parts with possession in both ways as he divests himself of all the rights as he had as a tenant and part with possession to delivering and only physical possession but also fully surrendering his legal possession over the tenanted premises. The impugned judgment did discuss evidence with a clear angle that the appellant had been 21

parting rent of Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent / DTC every month. The respondent DTC was admittedly not in possession any way of the demised premises as the appellant's own stand on this point is admittedly the same. In case, the first expression sublet has been established, almost in an admitted style, through various acts admitted documents and stands taken in various court proceedings, the other two expressions would also go hand in hand and the Ld. ARC was not any way required to state as to under which of the three expressions, parties case felt Evidence or specific admissions through deeds and conduct find duly discussed through various admitted or proved documents and these negates the plea of the appellant that the evidence had not been discussed by the Ld. Trial Court. I feel the impugned judgment carries all these necessary details and these need not be repeated here any further."

ARCT thereafter considered in detail the

relationship of landlord and tenant between LBS and

various statutory entities, in succession. The

transformation of GNIT, through DTS to DTC was duly

noticed, and dilated upon. It was noticed that DTC

which was a government undertaking, was a successor in

interest of a private transport company. It was further

noticed that the "land underneath the superstructure /

the demised premises might or might not belong to the 22

government and the superstructure was built around

May, 1948 by predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1

to 3 and an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month was agreed

to be paid being a fair return against the investment

made towards construction of superstructure". The

submission that Rs.3,500/- per month was paid as

compensation for construction of the superstructure was

considered and rejected with the observations :-

"The submission of appellant's Ld. Counsel that the amount was agreed to be paid only with a vie to compensate the predecessor-in- interest of respondents 1 to 3 and was not the rental of the super-structure does not seem to be carrying any weight and to my mind this submission cannot stand because the moment, we speak of compensation - it indicates to some specific amount of a specific period by which the liability would be deemed to have been discharged. It never means a flowing steam of payments to continue till infinity. It has got to be the rental only and it was also to understand, taken and acted upon by the parties as is clearly and unambiguously indicated from the admitted stand of respondent/DTC. The respondent / DTC had in its written statement admitted this amount as rent though at other point it denied it being so. Really, respondent / DTC could not suppress the truth and at times, it honestly leaned towards it and described this sum of Rs.3,500/- as monthly rental. Paras(a), (f) and

(k) of brief facts of the written statement of 23

respondent/DTC clearly reflect the above stand. In para (e), the words used are and would give it on rental basis to GNIT. The words used in para (f) are that Sh. Bharat Singh constructed a depot on plot No. 2 and rented out the same structure to GNIT at a monthly rental of Rs.3,500/-. Para (k) states...

and the GNIT company continued paying a rent of Rs.3,500/- per month to Sh. Bharat Singh for the amount he had invested on the super-structure and also for the amount he had financed to GNIT company. These terms are no misnomers and actually they pump out the real intent of the parties under which respondent / DTC started making payments of monthly rentals to respondents 1 to 3 their predecessor-in-interest".

21. We have been constrained to make elaborate

reference to the orders of ARC and ARCT only to

demonstrate that High Court was not justified in

observing that there has been `serious dereliction of duty'

or that there has been `blatant violation of the

fundamental principles of law and justice' by the ARC

and ARCT. We also cannot accept the observations of the

High Court that both ARC and ARCT have considered the

facts in a very mechanical way, or that the orders passed

by ARC and ARCT exhibited any patent illegality writ

large on the face of the orders. We also do not agree that 24

the ARC and ARCT ignored the sequence of events

through which GNIT was substituted by DTC. The entire

sequence of metamorphosis of GNIT into DTC have been

elaborately explained and dilated upon.

22. We are of the considered opinion that the High

Court ought not to have exercised the extra ordinary

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in the

peculiar circumstances of this case. We may briefly

indicate the reasons for saying so:-

(i) Initially the appellants filed a petition for

eviction against DTC and MCD. They had

clarified that MCD has been impleaded only to

avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(ii) Decree of eviction was passed. DTC lost in

appeal, lost in RCSA in the High Court.

However, the High Court clarified it shall have

no bearing on the appeal filed by MCD. The

order dated 31/01/2001, passed by the High 25

Court in CM (M) No.31 of 2001 reads as

under:-

"There is a concurrent findings of facts and law against the petitioner. It is not for this Court to substantiate for judgment over the judgment of the Court below through the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed.

I am informed that the MCD has challenged the impugned order before the Rent Control Tribunal. Dismissal of this petition shall have no bearing on the determination of the Appeal filed by the MCD. "

Following the aforesaid order, RCSA No: 17/2001 &

CMs 74-75/2001 filed by the MCD was also

dismissed vide order dated 03/09/2004, with the

following observations:-

"It appears that the order of the Additional Rent Controller was challenged before the Tribunal, which order has been adjudicated upon by other bench of this court which uphold the order of the Additional Rent Controller. In view of the matter, I see no reason to entertain this appeal. SAO 17/2001 is accordingly dismissed."

In our opinion the aforesaid order was

unexceptional since the pleas taken by the DTC and 26

MCD before the Additional Rent Controller were

identical. Therefore, it was in fitness of things that

the subsequent coordinate bench also dismissed the

appeal filed by MCD. The aforesaid order was

however recalled without any justification with the

following observations:-

"Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order dated September 03, 2004 as also January 30, 2001. It appears to me that while disposing of RCSA 17/2001 reference has been made purely CM(M) 31/2001. What escaped notice was that the order dated January 30, 2001 in CM(M) would have no bearing on the determination of the appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi."

Thereafter MCD, moved CM 4639/2007 with the

prayer that the appeal be treated as a petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the appeal

is not maintainable. The application was disposed

off by the following order dated 30/3/2007:-

"Counsel for the appellant has moved CM No: 4639/2007 praying that this appeal be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the appeal is not maintainable. He further submits that the appellant should file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or 27

under any other law if the same is permissible under law. On instruction from the respondent who is present in Court, counsel will not proceed with the execution petition for a period of 15 days from today. Subject to this condition as prayed by counsel for the appellant RCSA 17/01 is dismissed as withdrawn.

CM 4639/07 also stands disposed off."

A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the

application was disposed off on the statement made by

the learned counsel for MCD that the appellant (MCD)

should file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India if the same is permissible under

law. (emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be treated as an

order passed by the High Court permitting MCD to file a

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

However using the aforesaid order of the High Court as

an excuse, MCD filed the petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India on 09/04/2007, being CM (Main)

No. 57/2007, challenging the order which was passed by

the ARC dated 11/11/1989 and the order passed by 28

ARCT dated 12/3/2001. At this stage, in our opinion, the

High Court failed to bestow proper attention to the

objections taken by the appellants to the maintainability

of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

Proceedings under Article 227 can be initiated in the

absence of the availability of an alternative efficacious

remedy. In the present case, MCD had consciously

withdrawn RCSA which had been filed under Section

39(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appeal had been

filed against the order of the ARCT dated 12.3.2001.

However, the objection on the ground of delay and laches

was brushed aside by the High Court on two wholly

untenable grounds, i.e:-

(i) The orders passed by the ARC and ARCT

suffered from patent illegality on the face of the

orders.

(ii) The MCD was bona fide prosecuting a case in

the wrong court, due to mistake of law.

29 23. We are of the opinion that the High Court

committed a patent error of jurisdiction in entertaining

the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

which was unconscionably belated. Both reasons stated

by the High Court in support of its conclusions, are

contrary to the facts on the record.

It must be remembered that in these proceedings,

the pleas raised by the DTC and MCD before the ARC as

well as the ARCT were identical. The order passed by the

ARCT has been upheld by a coordinate bench of the High

Court. The RCSA No: 17/2001 filed by MCD on identical

grounds was thus dismissed by a subsequent coordinate

bench. That was indeed in conformity with the high

traditions, procedures and practices established by the

courts to maintain judicial discipline and decorum. The

underlying principle being, to avoid conflicting views

taken by coordinate benches of the same court. Except

in compelling circumstances, such as where the order of

the earlier bench can be said to be per incurium, in that 30

it is passed in ignorance of an earlier binding precedent/

statutory or constitutional provision, the subsequent

bench would follow the earlier coordinate bench.

24. It appears that the entire proceedings adopted by

MCD after the dismissal of the RCSA - CM(M) No.31 of

2001, on 31.1.2001 were a subterfuge to avoid the

execution proceedings in a decree which had become

final between the parties. In the application seeking

conversion of RCSA No: 17/2001 to a petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it was

categorically stated by MCD that the aforesaid RCSA was

not maintainable. The aforesaid statement is a clear

admission that the appeal filed by the MCD did not

involve a substantial question of law. It is apparent from

the fact that under Section 39(1) of the DRC Act subject

to the provisions of sub-section (2), an appeal lies to the

High Court from an order made by the ARCT. Sub-

section (2) provides as under :-

31

"No appeal shall lie under sub-section (1), unless the appeal involves some substantial question of law."

Having made an admission that no substantial

question of law was raised in the RCSA, withdrawal of

the same could not possibly have been used as a

justification for filing a petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. If the RCSA was devoid of any

substantial question of law, the petition under

Article 227, based on the same facts, would be equally

devoid of any substantial question of law. This categoric

admission of the MCD was ignored by the High Court

whilst recording the finding that the orders of ARC and

ARCT were passed "in blatant violation of fundamental

principles of law and justice." This apart in the peculiar

facts of this case, noticed above, it could not be held that

MCD had been bona fide prosecuting a case in the wrong

court. It was seeking a remedy provided under

Section 39(1) of DRC Act. Even this appeal was filed

beyond limitation. It was delayed by 431 days. In the

meantime possession of a part of the premises had 32

already been taken by the appellants. Inspite of the

objections having been raised to the maintainability of a

writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, they were rejected by the High Court with the

observations noticed in the earlier part of the judgment.

In such circumstances, in our opinion, it was wholly

inappropriate for the High Court to entertain the writ

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

25. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to

reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and

ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India had been

discussed in the case of The Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass

Estate (P) Ltd., [(2001) 8 SCC 97] wherein it was

observed as follows:

"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested 33

with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if 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, which the court or tribunal has come to."

In our opinion, the High Court committed a serious

error of jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition filed

by MCD under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in

the peculiar circumstances of this case. The decision to

exercise jurisdiction had to be taken in accordance with

the accepted norms of care, caution, circumspection. The

issue herein only related to a tenancy and subletting.

There was no lis relating to the ownership of the land on 34

which the superstructure or the demised premises had

been constructed. The whole issue of ownership of plot of

land No:2, Block-B, transport area of Jhandewalan

Estate, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New

Delhi is the subject matter of a civil suit being Suit No:

361 of 1980 in the High Court of Delhi. The High Court,

therefore, ought not to have given any opinion on the

question of ownership.

26. We are of the opinion the High Court traveled

beyond the well defined contours of its jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

27. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment and order.

Civil Appeal No. 8234 of 2010 @ Special Leave

Petition (C) No.1925 of 2008 :

1. Leave granted.

2. In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.8233 of

2010 @ SLP (C) No. 16995 of 2009, this appeal becomes

infructuous and is dismissed as such.

35 ...................................J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]

...................................J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi;

September 23, 2010.