Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a landlord-tenant dispute. The respondents (landlords) had filed a civil suit for eviction of the appellant (tenant). The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court (District Judge-3) reversed the decree. The respondents then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the appellate order. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Single Judge's order. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010). The High Court heard arguments on maintainability. The respondents argued that the writ petition was essentially under Article 227, as it sought to quash an order of a civil court, and that no writ of certiorari was specifically prayed for. The appellant contended that the writ petition was under both Articles 226 and 227, and therefore an appeal lay under Clause 15. The court examined the prayer clause and the nature of the order passed by the Single Judge. It held that the Single Judge had exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as the dispute was between private parties and the order challenged was from a civil court. Following the ratio in Shalini Shyam Shetty, the court concluded that a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Clause 15 of Letters Patent - Appeal against Single Judge order in writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 - Where the writ petition was filed against an order of the District Judge in a civil suit (landlord-tenant dispute) and the Single Judge exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (7) SCALE 428. (Paras 2-7)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope - The High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and an order passed in exercise of such jurisdiction cannot be appealed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, where the subject matter was a landlord-tenant dispute and the Single Judge set aside an appellate order of the District Judge.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Letters Patent Appeal maintainability
- Article 227 jurisdiction
- distinction between Article 226 and Article 227
- Shalini Shyam Shetty ratio
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 177
Letters Patent Appeal No. 150 of 2010
J.P. Devadhar, A.B. Chaudhari
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari Advocate for the Respondent
Manhar Auto Sotres, a Partnership concern through its partners: (A) Lalitkumar Pravindas Sanghani, (B) Vipinkumar Manharlal Sanghani, (C) Smt. Chandaben Manharlal Sanghani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge order in a writ petition arising from a landlord-tenant eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the Single Judge's order which had allowed the respondents' writ petition and restored the trial court's eviction decree.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the Single Judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 227.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed eviction; the District Judge-3 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree; the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and restored the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, where the subject matter was a landlord-tenant dispute and the Single Judge set aside an appellate order of the District Judge.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent's counsel (Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari) argued that the writ petition was essentially under Article 227, as it challenged an order of a civil court, and no writ of certiorari was sought; hence, following Shalini Shyam Shetty, a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable.
Appellant's counsel (Mr. M.G. Bhangde) argued that the writ petition was under both Articles 226 and 227, and therefore an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil.
Judgment Excerpts
In the present letters patent appeal there is a challenge to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2010 in W.P. No. 5521 of 2009 by which the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed.
The counsel for the respondents, Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present letters patent appeal in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (7) SCALE 428 decided on 23.7.2010.
Procedural History
The trial court decreed eviction. The District Judge-3 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree. The respondents filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 23.2.2010. The appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal on an unspecified date. The appeal was heard on preliminary objection and dismissed on 1.10.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court: Clause 15
