Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant under section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The respondent claimed to be a specified landlord and sought eviction after the Rent Controller dismissed his petition. The High Court later allowed the respondent's revision petition, determining that he was indeed a specified landlord and entitled to recover possession of the premises. The High Court granted the petitioner one month to vacate the premises, contingent upon the payment of arrears and filing an undertaking. The petitioner sought additional time to vacate and to waive the undertaking requirement, which the High Court rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which stayed dispossession temporarily. The respondent contended that the petitioner could not invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction due to the undertaking given to the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having accepted the protection from eviction through the undertaking, could not challenge the High Court's order. The court emphasized the doctrine of election, stating that a party cannot both accept and reject the same legal instrument. The petition was dismissed without costs, affirming the High Court's decision and the validity of the undertaking (Paras 263-264).
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Jurisdiction under Article 136 - Tenant's undertaking - The petitioner, having given an undertaking in compliance with the High Court's order, cannot invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 to challenge the High Court's judgment. The principle of election prohibits a party from accepting and rejecting the same instrument, thus the petitioner is precluded from assailing the High Court's order after availing the protection from eviction (Paras 263-264).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 after availing protection from eviction based on an undertaking.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the petitioner, having given an undertaking in compliance with the High Court's order, could not invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 to challenge the High Court's judgment.
Law Points
- Doctrine of election
- Protection from eviction
- Special leave petition under Article 136
- Specified landlord under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
- 1949
