Case: Jai Singh  Vs. M.C.D.

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 incuriam, in that 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: “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 already been taken by the appellants. In spite 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 v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., VI (2001) SLT 577=(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 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 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 travelled beyond the well defined contours of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 chinato 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 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 travelled 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.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 ofor that there has been ‘blatant violation of the fundamental principles of law andby 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 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 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in the peculiar circumstances of thisour opinion the aforesaid order was unexceptional since the pleas taken by the DTC and 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 byperusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the application was disposed of 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.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 9.4.2007, being CM (Main) No. 57/2007, challenging the order which was passed by the ARC dated 11.11.1989 and the order passed by 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.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 incuriam, in that 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 themade 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 passedblatant violation of fundamental principles of law andThis 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 already been taken by the appellants. In spite 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 ofour 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 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 travelled beyond the well defined contours of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.