AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Gopal Rao, J.—Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 18026/94 is filed by the landlord, i.e., respondent in CR.P.No. 4221/94 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 2-11-1994, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 4221/1994. Review C.M.P. 18095/94 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-original tenant/petitioners in C.R.P. No. 4221/94, to review the order, dated 2-11-1994, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 4221/94. Both these applications are being disposed of by this order.
For convenience sake, parties will be referred to in this order, according to their array in C.R.P. 4221/94.
Petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant. Respondent/landlord filed R.C. No. 149/1984 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the original tenant. Mr. Lal Chand, for eviction from the suit schedule premises. On 20-7-1988, eviction was ordered. The Rent Controller, by his order dated 20-7-1988, gave two months'' time to the tenant to vacate and hand-over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, to the landlord/respondent Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed Rent Appeal No. 273/1988 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. That appeal was dismissed on 30-4-1993, granting three months time to the tenants for vacating the premises. Petitioners filed C.R.P. No. 2609 of 1993 in this Court, questioning the order in R.A. No. 273/1988. This Court, by order, dt. 2-8-1993, dismissed the C.R.P. No. 2609/93 and granted three months time to the petitioners to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises, to the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners/tenants filed SLP (Civil) No. 16521 of 1993 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 28-10-1993, dismissed SLP (Civil) No. 16521/93, by passing the following order:-
"THIS COURT DOTH ORDER that the petition for Special Leave to Appeal above mentioned by and is hereby dismissed, but the Order of eviction passed against the petitioners herein shall not be executed for a period of one year from 1st day of November, 1993 on condition that the petitioners-herein file an Affidavit of Undertaking in this Court within four weeks from this the 28 th day of October 1993, to the following effect:-
That the petitioners herein shall hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents-herein on or before the expiry of one year from 1st day of November, 1993.
That the petitioners-herein shall pay to the respondents-herein arrears of rent if any within one month from this the 28th day of October, 1993.
That the petitioners-herein shall pay to the respondents-herein future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th of every month.
That the petitioners shall not induct any person in the suit premises. AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that in case of default of compliance with any one or more of the aforesaid conditions or if the Undertaking abovementioned is not filed as required within the stipulated time, the Decree shall become executable forthwith.
AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER order that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned."
In compliance with the above Order of the Supreme Court the petitioners-herein filed an affidavit of Undertaking in the Supreme Court. When execution was taken by the landlord/respondent, petitioners filed E.A.Sr. No. 17886 of 1994 in the pending E.P.Sr. No. 468 of 1994 in R.C. No. 149 of 1984 before the Rent Controller, praying that they should not be evicted from the premises in question, setting up a plea of fresh oral agreement of tenancy with the landlord for a period of eleven months on enhanced rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month and also on payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards advance. The learned Rent Controller Dismissed E. A.S R. No. 17886/94. The order of the Rent Controller reads thus:
"HEARD. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, in its order, dated 28-10-1993, in SLP directed the petitioner/tenant to hand-over the vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent/landlord on or before the expiry of one year from 1-11-1993. In view of the above order, this petition is not maintainable and therefore, this petition is rejected at S.R. stage."
Aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the Rent Controller, the present C.R.P. No. 4221/94 is filed by the petitioners in this Court. On 2-11-1994, C.R.P.4221/94 was dismissed at the admission stage, in the following terms:-
"The petitioners are the tenants. In the eviction petition filed earlier by the respondent/landlord, eviction of the petitioners was ordered, and the matter went upto Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court in its order dated 28-10-1993 in SLP 16521/93 granted time to the petitioners to vacate the premises in question upto 1-11-1994.
Now, the petitioners have set up an oral agreement between them and the landlord to the effect that the landlord had agreed to extent the tenancy on 15-10-1994 for a period of 11 months from 28-10-1994 on modified terms. The lower Court disbelieved this agreement set up by the petitioners and ordered eviction of the petitioners by 1-11-1994. Having fought the litigation upto the Supreme Court and having obtained an eviction order against the petitioners, it is very difficult to believe that, by an oral aggrement, the respondent has agreed to extend the tenancy for a period of 11 months from 28-10-1994. The lower Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners and dismissed the petition. I do not see any valid reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision. The C.R.P. is dismissed in limine. The petitioners shall have time to vacate the suit schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the respondent only upto 31st January, 1995."
The petitioners, when C.R.P. No. 4221/94 came up for consideration in this Court, did not produce a copy of the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 16521/93 dated 28-1-1993 or brought to the notice of this Court the fact of filing of the affidavit of undertaking in the Supreme Court by the petitioners, to vacate the premises before the expiry of one year from 1-11-1993.
The respondent/landlord C.R.P.4221/94 filed CMP 18026/94, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 2-11-1994 passed in C.R.P. No. 4221/94, contending that the said order is in conflict with the order passed on 28-10-1993 by the supreme Court in SPL (Civil) No. 16521/93. Relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Public Vigilance by Bharadwaja Vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P. and Others, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Jahurul Islam Vs. Abul Kalam and others, , the respondent/landlord contended that the order dated 2-11-1994, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 4221 /94, being in conflict with the order of the Supreme Court dated 28-10-1993 in SLP 16521/93, the same is non-est and without jurisidction.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 18095 of 1994, is filed by the petitioners/ tenants to review the order, dated 2-11-1994, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 4221/1994, contending that this Court committed an error in holding that "the lower Court disbelieved this agreement set up by the petitioners" even though the lower Court did not advert to the said agreement.
As mentioned already, both these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
In Public Vigilance by Bharadwaja Vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P. and Others, , a Division Bench of this Court held thus:
"Under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. In the hierarchial set up of the Courts in our country, as ordained by the Constitution, the High Court compared to the Supreme Court, exercises jurisdiction of an inferior nature. The decree granted by a higher Court must be obeyed by the lower Court. Any attempt, either directly or indirectly, to enquire into the validity or otherwise of the decree granted by the higher Court would be subversive of judicial discipline, and negation of the Rule of Law. .......... ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... Any decision rendered by any Court, if in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court, would be non-est and absolutely without jurisdiction and violative of Article 141 of the Constitution."
The Supreme Court in Jahurul Islam Vs. Abul Kalam and others, , directed that the decree-holder should be given possession of entirety of suit premises by executing Court by evicting the judgment-debtor and others setting up claim of tenancy, if necessary by assistance of police. In this case, the Supreme Court granted time to the judgment-debtor to vacate the premises on condition of his filing an affidavit of undertaking with a direction to pay the arrears of rent within a particular time. The tenant/judgment-debtor failed to file the undertaking and also failed to pay the arrears of rent within the time granted for vacating the premises. A case was set up by two persons, filing a suit, claiming tenancy rights in portion of the premises in question. The District Judge passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Considering the above facts, the Supreme Court, directed that the decree-holder should be put in possession of entire premises by the executing Court, by evicting judgment-debtor and others, who have set up a claim of tenancy, if necessary with the assistance of police. The Supreme Court held thus:
"After considering the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and the affidavits filed by respondent No. 6, M/s. Hind Barrel Co., and the respondents Nos. 13 to 15, it appears to us that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a direction from this Court that the decree should be executed immediately by the Executing Court and delivery of the entirety of the suit premises covered by the decree under execution should be delivered to the decree-holder, the petitioner, Jahurul Islam, by the Executing Court by evicting the respondent No. 1, Abul Kalam and other respondents, including respondents Nos. 6 and 13 to 15 and any other person in possession of any portion of the disputed premises, if necessary, with the police help"
As mentioned already, filing of the affidavit of Undertaking by the petitioners in the Supreme Court, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 16521/93, was not brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners, when the order dated 2-11-1994 was passed in C.R.F. 4221/1994. The petitioners/tenants are bound to vacate the suit schedule premises immediately after the expiry of one year period from 1-11-1993, in compliance with the affidavit of Undertaking filed by them in the Supreme Court, in SLP (Civil) 16521/93. Had the fact of filing of affidavit of Undertaking in the Supreme Court by the petitioners pursuant to the order in SLP (Civil) No. 16521/93 been brought to the notice of this Court earlier, this Court would not have granted any further time to the petitioners/tenants to vacate the suit schedule premises. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Vigilance v. The Govt. of A.P. (1 supra) and by the Supreme Court in Jahurul Islam v. Abul Kalam (2 supra), applies in all fours to the facts of this case. Any device resorted to by way of a legal proceeding to defeat an order passed by the Supreme Court should not be entertained at all. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly dismissed E.A. S.R. No. 17386/94. The order, dated 2-11-1994 passed by this Court, being directly in conflict with the order, dated 28-10-1993 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 16521 /93, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order dated 2-11-1994 passed by this Court in CRP 4221/94 is quashed and the impugned order, dated 28-10-1994, in E.A.S.R. No. 17886/94 in E.P. S.R. No. 468/94 in R.C.C. No. 149/1984 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, is confirmed. CMP. No. 18026 of 1994 is allowed.
In view of the quashing of the order, dated 2-11-1994, passed in C.R.P. No. 4221/94, as above, the question of reviewing the said order does not arise, C.M.P. No. 18095 of 1994 is accordingly dismissed.
9.There shall be no order as to costs.