Supreme Court Restrains High Court Order to Vacate Premises: Pradeepkumar Gordhandas Patel vs. Chandrakant Jivanlal Patel (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 341
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a High Court direct a party to vacate premises when the lower court has not passed any eviction order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the appellant to vacate the premises, despite the Small Causes Court not issuing an eviction order. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The appellant, Pradeepkumar Gordhandas Patel, claimed to have purchased a property in Ahmedabad in 1994 and taken possession of it. In 2003, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was later dismissed. Subsequently, in 2010, he filed another suit for specific performance, seeking the execution of a sale deed and an injunction to prevent the respondent from disturbing his possession. This suit remains pending. On July 1, 2011, the respondent, Chandrakant Jivanlal Patel, filed an application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, seeking vacant possession of the property. On August 5, 2011, the appellant filed an application under Section 47 of the same Act, seeking a stay on the respondent’s application. The Small Causes Court rejected the appellant’s application on January 28, 2013. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to vacate the premises on June 19, 2018.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Small Causes Court rejected the appellant’s application under Section 47 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The High Court dismissed the application and further directed the appellant to vacate the premises, which was the subject matter of P.S.R.P. No. 22 of 2011.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 41 and Section 47 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 deals with the power of the court to issue a summons to a person in possession of immovable property, while Section 47 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 deals with the procedure for stay of proceedings.

Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 states:
“When any person has had possession of any immovable property situate within the local limits of the Small Cause Court and of which the annual value at a rack-rent does not exceed two thousand rupees, as the tenant, or by permission of another person, or of some person through whom such other person claims, and such tenancy or permission has determined or been withdrawn, and such tenant or occupier or any other person holding under him refuses to deliver up such property in compliance with a notice in writing, given to him by the person entitled to the possession of such property, to deliver up such property, the person so entitled to the possession of such property may apply to the Small Cause Court for an order to recover possession of such property.”

Section 47 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 states:
“If, at any time before the trial of any suit, it appears to the Court that any party to such suit is prosecuting or has prosecuted in any other Court a suit for the same cause of action, the Court shall stay the proceedings in such suit.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred in directing the appellant to vacate the premises while dismissing the Special Civil Application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
• The High Court should not have issued any direction to vacate the premises since no order was passed under Section 41 or Section 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• No order has been passed under Section 41 or Section 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, in the application filed under Section 41 of the Act.
• The Small Causes Court rightly rejected the appellant’s application under Section 47 of the Act, which was confirmed by the High Court.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to vacate the premises while dismissing the Special Civil Application, given that no eviction order was passed by the Small Causes Court under Section 41 or 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment. The legal provisions considered by the court are:

• Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882: This section deals with the power of the court to issue a summons to a person in possession of immovable property.
• Section 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882: This section deals with the order for possession of property.
• Section 47 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882: This section deals with the procedure for stay of proceedings.
• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of High Courts to exercise superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the High Court’s direction to the appellant to vacate the premises. The Court clarified that all contentions are left open and the Small Causes Court is free to decide the application filed by the respondent under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, on its own merits.

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the fact that no order was passed under Section 41 or Section 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution by directing the appellant to vacate the premises.

The Court noted that the High Court’s direction to vacate the premises was not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

The Court stated that:
“As much as no order is passed either under Section 41 or under Section 43 of the Act by the Small Causes Court, the High Court has committed error in issuing directions to the appellant to vacate the premises, which is subject matter of the petition.”

The Court also clarified that:
“We make it clear that all contentions are left open and it is open for the Small Causes Court to decide the application (P.S.R.P. No.22 of 2011) filed by the respondent under Section 41 of the Act on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this order.”

The Court further stated that:
“We further make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse of the High Court in directing the appellant to vacate the premises without any order passed by the Small Causes Court under Section 41 or Section 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the due process of law and not exceeding the jurisdiction conferred upon it. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a higher court cannot pass an order that the lower court has not passed, especially when the law prescribes a specific procedure.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Key Takeaways

• The High Court cannot direct a party to vacate premises unless the lower court has passed an order for eviction under the relevant provisions of law.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the due process of law.
• The Small Causes Court has to decide the application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, on its own merits.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Small Causes Court to decide the application filed by the respondent under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, on its own merits, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot direct a party to vacate premises when the lower court has not passed any order for eviction under Section 41 or Section 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. This judgment reinforces the principle that higher courts must not exceed their jurisdiction and must adhere to the prescribed procedure under the law. This judgment clarifies the scope of powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, specifically in relation to orders passed by the Small Causes Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case sets aside the High Court’s direction to vacate the premises, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness and adherence to jurisdictional limits. The Court clarified that the High Court cannot issue directions that the lower court has not passed, especially when the law prescribes a specific procedure. This judgment ensures that the Small Causes Court decides the matter on its merits and reinforces the principle of due process in judicial proceedings.