TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court emphasizes jurisdictional errors in landlord-tenant disputes correctable under Article 226</h1> <h3>Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari & Others Versus Vishwanath Champat Naik & Others </h3> Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari & Others Versus Vishwanath Champat Naik & Others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Division Bench was bound to follow the view of the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. Limited vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and others (2009) 1 SCC 8 instead of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329.2. Whether the Division Bench should have held that a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) is tenable against an order of a Single Judge passed in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a landlord-tenant dispute.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Following Supreme Court PrecedentsThe primary question was whether the Division Bench was required to follow the Supreme Court's view in M.M.T.C. Limited, decided by a three-judge bench, over Shalini Shyam Shetty, decided by a two-judge bench. The High Court emphasized that when faced with conflicting views from larger and smaller benches of the Supreme Court, the High Court must follow the larger bench's decision as per the rule of law and practice laid down in State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi - AIR 1976 SC 2547.The judgment in M.M.T.C. Limited held that the nature of the relief sought and the controversy involved determine the applicable Article of the Constitution, not merely the nature of the parties. The larger bench in M.M.T.C. Limited affirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable in certain circumstances, even in private disputes, thereby supporting the tenability of an L.P.A. against an order passed under Articles 226 and 227.Issue 2: Tenability of L.P.A. in Landlord-Tenant DisputesThe Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 150/2010 had held that a dispute between landlord and tenant could only be entertained under Article 227, thus barring an L.P.A. However, the High Court noted that this view was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in M.M.T.C. Limited, which allowed for the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 in similar circumstances.The Full Bench in Advani Oerlikon Ltd. vs. Machindra Govind Makasare & Ors. (2011) clarified that jurisdictional errors or errors resulting in miscarriage of justice committed by subordinate courts or tribunals could be corrected under Article 226, and thus, an L.P.A. would be maintainable if the facts justified invoking Article 226. The Full Bench also emphasized that the true nature of the order passed by the Single Judge determines the maintainability of the appeal, not merely the nomenclature of the petition.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 150/2010 erred in not considering the larger bench decision in M.M.T.C. Limited and should have recognized the tenability of an L.P.A. against an order passed under Articles 226 and 227. The principles laid down in Shalini Shyam Shetty did not alter the established law that writ petitions under Article 226 could be entertained in certain private disputes, especially where jurisdictional errors were involved. The High Court directed that the L.P.A. 268/2007 be placed before a competent Division Bench for further consideration in light of these findings and the Full Bench judgment in Advani Oerlikon Ltd.
TaxTMI 