TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies limits of writ petitions in private property disputes</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 are not appropriate for private property disputes ... Whether appellant has made any other application to the Supreme Court or the High Court in respect of the same matter and how that application has been disposed of? Whether writ will lie against a private person? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest Courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly. The High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord. The course adopted by the High Court cannot be approved. Of course, High Court's order of non- interference in view of concurrent findings of facts is unexceptionable. Issues Involved:1. Grounds for eviction.2. Unauthorized possession and encroachment.3. Nuisance and annoyance.4. Jurisdiction and maintainability of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grounds for Eviction:The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of breach of terms of tenancy, damage to the property, and causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and other occupants. The original defendant was the tenant of the suit premises, paying a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. The plaintiff alleged unauthorized possession of a common area by the defendant, which was not included in the tenancy agreement.2. Unauthorized Possession and Encroachment:The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had requested keys to clean a portion of the property but did not return them, leading to suspicion. Upon inspection, the plaintiff found that the defendant had placed items in the common area and removed a drainage cover. Despite a police complaint and requests to remove the items, the defendant did not comply. The Court of Small Causes at Mumbai decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The court noted that the defendants were in unlawful occupation of the common area, which was not let out to them, thus amounting to encroachment and causing waste and damage to the property.3. Nuisance and Annoyance:The trial court found that the defendants' actions resulted in unhygienic conditions, causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and other occupants. However, the First Appellate Court set aside the trial court's findings on nuisance and annoyance, noting that none of the neighboring occupants were examined by the plaintiff to substantiate the claim.4. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of Writ Petitions:The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that there were concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court discussed the distinction between writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, noting that the High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 is meant to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and ensure they obey the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a writ petition under Article 226 is not appropriate for disputes between private parties unless there is a statutory duty involved. The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition in a private landlord-tenant dispute and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order of non-interference due to concurrent findings of fact.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in a private landlord-tenant dispute. The Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, emphasizing that writ petitions are not suitable for resolving private property disputes unless there is a statutory duty involved. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
