Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Smt. (Dr.) D. Kaur vs Smt. Kanti Khare And Ors.

Supreme Court10 August 1981O. Chinnappa Reddy · P.N. Bhagwati

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where there is a conflict between decisions of two single judges of a High Court on the same question of law, a Division Bench of that High Court should resolve the conflict rather than allowing divergent precedent to stand. When a High Court remands a matter to a subordinate officer to decide a question of law or fact that could have been determined on the basis of evidence already led before the court, the High Court should itself decide that question according to law rather than remanding it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT
1. Special leave granted.

2. Two principal questions were debated before the High Court in this case and they were whether it is necessary to give notice of the hearing to an applicant for allotment of accommodation under Section 16 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer decides whether a deemed Vacancy has arisen and if it has so arisen to whom the allotment should be made and what is the test for determining whether accommodation is residential or non-residential within the meaning of that Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken the view that an applicant for allotment of accommodation on the ground of deemed vacancy is entitled to be heard before an order is made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but this view taken by the learned Judge seems to be contrary to the decision of another single Judge of the High Court in Munu Lal v. District' Judge decided on 6th April, 1979. It is, therefore, necessary that so far as this particular question is concerned the conflict between the decision of two judges of the High Court should be resolved by a Division Bench of the High Court. Moreover, we find that the High Court has laid down certain guidelines for the purpose of deciding the question whether the accommodation in the present case is residential or non-residential and remand the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the purpose of deciding that question, in accordance with rules and guidelines. We are of the view that the High Court need not have remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but should have decided the question itself on the basis of evidence which was already led by the parties. We would, therefore, set aside the decision of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court with a direction that the matter may be disposed of anew by a Division Bench of the High Court according to law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. Since the case is an old one the Division Bench of the High Court will dispose it of at an early date. There will be no order as to costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free