Supreme Court Allows Tenant to Challenge Eviction Despite Previous Orders: Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar vs. Yashwant Vichare (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 19 September 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a tenant challenge an eviction order even after an ex-parte decree and execution? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case where a tenant was initially evicted but later allowed to pursue further legal remedies. The court clarified that previous orders should not hinder the tenant’s right to challenge the eviction in a higher court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

In 2006, the appellant, Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar, filed a summary suit for eviction against the respondent, Yashwant Vichare, in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The suit, designated as RAE & R Suit No. 277/459 of 2006, was decreed ex-parte on 14 March 2007. The appellant claimed that the execution of the decree had also been carried out. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside the ex-parte decree. This application was allowed on 6 May 2009. The appellate court of the Small Causes Court affirmed this order on 9 December 2012. The appellant then approached the High Court, but was unsuccessful.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Small Causes Court initially decreed the eviction suit ex-parte on 14 March 2007. The respondent then filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which was allowed on 6 May 2009, setting aside the ex-parte decree. The appellate court of the Small Causes Court upheld this order on 9 December 2012. The appellant’s challenge to these orders before the High Court was unsuccessful. During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, the Small Causes Court tried the suit afresh and again decreed it. This new decree was also affirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The respondent indicated his intention to challenge this new decree before the High Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily refers to Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows a defendant to apply for setting aside an ex-parte decree if they were not properly served or had sufficient cause for not appearing. The specific text of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is not provided in the source document.

Arguments

The source document does not provide a detailed account of the arguments made by either party. However, it can be inferred that:

• The appellant (landlord) argued for the validity of the initial ex-parte decree and the subsequent execution.
• The respondent (tenant) argued for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree, which was initially successful in the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the previous orders passed in the eviction suit should prevent the respondent from pursuing further legal remedies, especially given that the suit was tried afresh and decreed again.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The source document does not provide any details on the application or interpretation of this provision by the court.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The judgment does not cite any specific authorities. Therefore, there is no analysis of how any authority was viewed by the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was to ensure that the respondent (tenant) had the opportunity to challenge the eviction order in the High Court, despite the previous ex-parte decree and subsequent proceedings. The court emphasized that the previous orders should not impede the respondent’s right to seek legal recourse. The court’s decision was driven by the principle of fairness and the need to provide the respondent with a chance to present his case before a higher court.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on ensuring that the respondent had access to justice and was not precluded from challenging the eviction order due to procedural issues. While the facts of the case were considered, the legal principle of ensuring a fair hearing and allowing the respondent to pursue legal remedies weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.

The court did not delve into alternative interpretations or reject any specific legal points. The decision was straightforward, focusing on ensuring procedural fairness and access to justice for the respondent.

The court stated, “none of the observations and findings made in the impugned orders shall stand in the way of the respondent pursuing his remedy before the High Court in accordance with law.”

The court further clarified, “the possession, which has already been restored to the appellant, shall continue with her, of course, subject to any final orders that may be passed by the High Court in the challenge proposed to be made by the respondent.”

There was no majority or minority opinion, as the judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench with a unanimous decision.

Key Takeaways

• Previous orders in an eviction case, including ex-parte decrees, should not prevent a party from pursuing further legal remedies.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their case before a higher court.
• Possession of the property may be subject to the final orders passed by the High Court in any subsequent challenge.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the observations and findings in the impugned orders should not hinder the respondent from pursuing his legal remedies before the High Court. The court also clarified that the appellant’s possession of the property would be subject to any final orders passed by the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that previous orders, including ex-parte decrees, should not be an impediment for a party to pursue further legal remedies. This judgment reinforces the principle that all parties should have the opportunity to have their cases heard on merits, especially in eviction matters, and ensures that procedural hurdles do not deny access to justice.

Conclusion

In the case of Rekha Gurunath Mhashelkar vs. Yashwant Vichare, the Supreme Court clarified that previous orders in an eviction case should not prevent a tenant from pursuing further legal remedies. The court’s decision ensures that the tenant has the opportunity to challenge the eviction in the High Court, emphasizing the importance of access to justice and fair legal processes. The court’s judgment underscores that procedural issues should not hinder a party’s right to have their case heard on merits.