RAMCHANDRA DAGOJI RANGARI Vs. VISHWANATH CHAMPAT NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THIS L.P.A. is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector in proceedings under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The learned Single Judge has in effect refused to issue the writ of certiorari prayed for by the appellant in the writ petition. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 opposes the tenability of this appeal in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 150/2010 by which the Division Bench has held that an issue between landlord and tenant can be entertained only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, according to the learned counsel Article 226 could not have been invoked, as a result the present L.P.A. is not tenable. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further points out that the Division Bench has taken this view in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another .vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil � 2010 (7) SCALE 428. The Supreme Court has held, as rightly observed by the Division Bench, that no dispute between private parties is tenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and decisions arising out of such disputes can be challenged before the High Court only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the High Courts would commit an error in entertaining a writ petition in a dispute between the landlord and tenant where the only respondent is a private landlord.

(3.) IT thus appears as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that decisions of inferior Tribunal or subordinates courts in purely private parties have long been considered to amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty's case takes a different view. In these circumstances, since both views were submitted to the Division Bench, according to the appellant the Division Bench ought to have followed the view taken in a long line of cases culminating in the M.M.T.C. Limited's case which has held that a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution available to private parties in their disputes before subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals. In such a situation when the High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by the larger and smaller Benches of the Supreme Court, the law laid down by the Supreme Court vide a State of U.P. .vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi � AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2547 is as follows:-