Supreme Court Remands Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Biswajit Sukul vs. Deo Chand Sarda (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 858

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can an appellate court review a finding in favor of the appellant, without the respondent filing a cross-objection? The Supreme Court of India addressed this procedural question in a landlord-tenant dispute. The Court found that the first appellate court had erred in reversing a finding that was in favor of the appellant, as the respondents had not filed any cross-objections. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and remanded the case back to the First Appellate Court. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

The appellant, Biswajit Sukul, claimed to be the landlord of a shop in Silchar Town. He filed a civil suit against Deo Chand Sarda (Respondent No. 1) in 1977, seeking eviction and arrears of rent. The appellant contended that Respondent No. 1 was his tenant on a monthly rent basis and had defaulted on rent payments since August 1977. Respondent No. 2 was later impleaded in the suit as a necessary party. The respondents denied the claims made by the appellant.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court framed six issues, including whether the suit was maintainable, if there was a cause of action, and whether the defendant was a tenant and a defaulter. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the maintainability of the suit and the landlord-tenant relationship, but against the plaintiff on the cause of action and the defendant being a defaulter, ultimately dismissing the suit on 23 December 1999. The plaintiff appealed to the First Appellate Court, which also dismissed the appeal on 14 August 2002. The plaintiff then filed a revision petition in the Gauhati High Court, which was also dismissed on 02 January 2014, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The suit was filed under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court also considered Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with cross-objections in appeals. Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure states:

“Upon hearing the appeal, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to examine the finding of the Trial Court on the first part of issue No. 4, which was in favor of the appellant.
• The appellant contended that since the respondents did not file any cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the First Appellate Court could not reverse the finding that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff.
• The appellant argued that the High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the First Appellate Court, which had acted without jurisdiction.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the First Appellate Court was correct in its decision and that the High Court was correct in affirming the same.
• The respondents did not file any cross-objections in the first appeal against the findings of the Trial Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the following key points:

1. Whether the First Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to examine and reverse the finding of the Trial Court on the first part of issue No. 4, which was in favor of the plaintiff, without the defendants filing cross-objections?
2. Whether the High Court was correct in affirming the decision of the First Appellate 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 cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. However, it did refer to the following legal provision:

• Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This provision deals with cross-objections in appeals.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to conclude that the First Appellate Court could not have reversed the finding of the Trial Court on the first part of issue No. 4 without a cross-objection filed by the respondents. The Court held that the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the finding on the first part of issue No. 4 in the plaintiff’s appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural error committed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court’s failure to recognize it. The Court emphasized that an appellate court cannot review a finding that is in favor of the appellant unless the respondent files a cross-objection. The court was not influenced by the merits of the case but by the procedural aspect.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the finding on the first part of issue No. 4 in the plaintiff’s appeal. The High Court also committed the same mistake by not noticing the jurisdictional error committed by the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and the judgment of the First Appellate Court and remanded the case to the First Appellate Court to decide the first appeal filed by the plaintiff afresh on its merits only to examine the legality and correctness of the issues which were decided against the plaintiff by the Trial Court.

“The First Appellate Court, therefore, could not examine the legality and correctness of this finding in plaintiff’s appeal unless it was challenged by the defendants by filing cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code in the appeal.”

“In our opinion, the High Court should have noticed the aforementioned mistake and remanded the case to the First Appellate Court for deciding the plaintiff’s appeal afresh on merits confining its enquiry by the First Appellate Court to decide only the legality and correctness of those issues, which were decided by the Trial Court against the plaintiff and which led to the dismissal of suit.”

“We, however, make it clear, that since the defendants did not file any cross objection in the appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, they are not allowed to file the cross objection at such belated stage taking advantage of the remand of the appeal to the First Appellate Court by this Court.”

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court cannot reverse a finding in favor of the appellant if the respondent has not filed a cross-objection.
• Appellate courts must adhere to procedural rules and cannot exceed their jurisdiction.
• The High Court should have corrected the jurisdictional error committed by the First Appellate Court.
• The case was remanded to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision on the merits of the issues decided against the plaintiff.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the First Appellate Court to decide the plaintiff’s first appeal afresh on its merits, examining only the legality and correctness of the issues decided against the plaintiff by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court also directed that the defendants are not allowed to file cross-objections at this belated stage. The First Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal within six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court cannot review a finding in favor of the appellant without a cross-objection from the respondent. This reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural rules in appellate proceedings and sets a precedent for similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Biswajit Sukul vs. Deo Chand Sarda & Ors. highlights the importance of procedural correctness in appellate proceedings. The Court found that both the First Appellate Court and the High Court had erred by not adhering to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case was remanded to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision on the merits, emphasizing the need for appellate courts to respect jurisdictional boundaries.