Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 657
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., R. Banumathi, J.
Can a High Court interfere with a Trial Court’s eviction order when the tenant has been consistently absent during proceedings and the eviction decree has already been executed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim. This case revolves around a landlord’s eviction petition and the subsequent legal battle when the tenant challenged the eviction order after possession was already handed over to the landlord. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Banumathi, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Hameed Kunju, owned eight shops, one of which was rented to the respondent, Nazim, at a monthly rent of Rs. 350. In 2006, Hameed Kunju filed an eviction petition against all eight tenants, including Nazim, seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, citing his bona fide need to start a business in the shops. The case went through multiple rounds of litigation, including ex-parte orders, appeals, and remands.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially passed an ex-parte eviction order in 2007, which was set aside by the Appellate Authority, and the case was remanded. After remand, the Trial Court dismissed the eviction petition for default due to the absence of the appellant’s Power of Attorney. The appellant’s subsequent applications for restoration were also dismissed. The Appellate Authority then restored the eviction petition, directing the appellant to pay costs. After the second remand, the Trial Court passed an eviction order on 31.07.2014, as the tenants were absent despite notice. The appellant took possession of the shops through an execution order. The respondent, Nazim, then filed applications to set aside the eviction order and for redelivery of the shop. The High Court allowed Nazim’s writ petition, quashing the Trial Court’s orders and remanding the case for fresh trial. The Supreme Court then heard the matter in appeal.

Legal Framework

The eviction petition was filed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the landlord requires the building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family.

Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the landlord requires the building for the purpose of carrying out repairs or alterations which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated.

The case also involves the interpretation of Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the execution of a decree for delivery of immovable property.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution because the respondent had an alternative remedy of appeal.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s orders, especially after the eviction decree had been executed and possession was delivered to the appellant.
• The respondent was aware of the eviction proceedings and had been contesting them at every stage.
• The Trial Court was justified in passing the eviction order as the respondent failed to appear despite notice.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Trial Court to allow the respondent’s applications.
• The appellant had complied with the order of the Appellate Court by paying the costs.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that they were not given proper notice of the proceedings before the eviction order was passed.
• The respondent sought to set aside the eviction order and obtain redelivery of the shop.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution and was, therefore, justified in interfering in the four orders of the Trial Court/Executing Court impugned therein and, in consequence, justified in remanding the case to the Trial Court for deciding the eviction petition de novo on merits with specific directions to the Trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the facts of the case and the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, which the respondent failed to pursue.
• The fact that the eviction decree had already been executed and possession was delivered to the appellant.
• The respondent’s awareness of the eviction proceedings and his failure to appear despite notice.
• The lack of any jurisdictional issue affecting the validity of the eviction decree.
• The High Court’s overreach in directing the Trial Court to allow the respondent’s applications.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the respondent’s conduct and the execution of the decree, as well as the legal principles related to alternative remedies and the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should be cautious in exercising their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when an alternative remedy is available.
• Once an eviction decree has been executed and possession delivered, the litigation should generally be considered to have come to an end, unless there are serious jurisdictional issues.
• Tenants cannot abuse the process of the Court by repeatedly failing to appear and then challenging the eviction order after it has been executed.
• Courts should prioritize the speedy disposal of eviction cases, especially those based on the landlord’s bona fide need.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed all the applications filed by the respondent before the Trial Court. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the respondent, payable to the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not interfere with eviction orders passed by Trial Courts when an alternative remedy is available, especially after the execution of the decree. This judgment reinforces the principle that once a decree is executed, the litigation should be considered closed unless there are significant jurisdictional issues. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for speedy disposal of eviction cases and cautioned against the abuse of the legal process by tenants.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Hameed Kunju, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Trial Court’s eviction order, especially after the decree had been executed. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the need for speedy disposal of eviction cases. The respondent’s applications were dismissed, and costs were imposed.