Supreme Court Remands Eviction Case Due to High Court’s Error on Quit Notice: Shrikant vs. Narayan Singh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: October 23, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 948

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a High Court decide on an issue that was not framed as a substantial question of law in a second appeal? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning eviction of a tenant. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court erred in examining the validity of a quit notice when it was not a part of the substantial questions of law framed for the second appeal. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The appellant, Shrikant, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the respondent, Narayan Singh. The appellant claimed that Narayan Singh was a tenant on the suit premises and was liable to be evicted due to non-payment of rent. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellant, decreeing the suit and ordering the eviction of the respondent. The Trial Court also found that a landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the quit notice issued by the appellant was valid. Additionally, the Trial Court directed the respondent to pay mesne profits/rent for three years prior to the filing of the suit.

The respondent, aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant had not proven the landlord-tenant relationship. However, the First Appellate Court upheld the validity of the termination notice. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, ordering the eviction of the respondent and payment of mesne profits. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, holding that the appellant had not proven the landlord-tenant relationship, but upheld the validity of the termination notice. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court, while deciding the second appeal, examined the validity of the quit notice (Exhibit P-2) dated 5th August, 1976, and held it to be defective. This was despite the fact that the validity of the quit notice was not framed as a substantial question of law in the second appeal.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly cite specific sections of any statute. However, it implicitly refers to the legal framework governing second appeals, which requires the High Court to decide on the substantial questions of law framed by it. The High Court is expected to address the issues framed before it and not go beyond them.

Arguments

The arguments of the parties are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, the core issue revolves around the High Court’s decision to examine the validity of the quit notice when it was not a framed issue. The appellant’s argument would be that the High Court erred in going beyond the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal. The respondent’s argument, though not explicitly stated, would likely support the High Court’s decision. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the arguments of either party, rather it focussed on the procedural impropriety of the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in this case. Rather, it identified the error committed by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific authorities in this judgment. The court’s decision was based on the procedural impropriety of the High Court in deciding on an issue that was not framed as a substantial question of law.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that a High Court should not decide on issues that are not framed as substantial questions of law in a second appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms and focusing on the specific issues framed before it.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have examined the substantial questions of law framed by it and answered the same in accordance with law. The Court held that the impugned order was not sustainable and the matter had to be remitted back to the High Court.

“In our considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the substantial questions of law framed by it and answered the same in accordance with law.”

“In such view of the matter the impugned order is not sustainable and the matter has to be remitted back to the High Court.”

“We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must adhere to the substantial questions of law framed in a second appeal.
• ✓ High Courts cannot decide on issues that were not framed as substantial questions of law.
• ✓ The Supreme Court can remand cases back to the High Court if it finds that the High Court has not followed the correct procedure.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court, in a second appeal, must confine itself to the substantial questions of law framed by it and cannot decide on issues that were not framed as substantial questions of law. This reinforces the procedural requirements for second appeals and ensures that the High Court does not overstep its jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s orders, and remanded the case back to the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in examining the validity of the quit notice when it was not an issue framed in the second appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of procedural correctness and adherence to the substantial questions of law framed in a second appeal.