NUTAN VIDYA SAMITHI Vs. MIR NASIR ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the power of superintendence given to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, is an extraordinary power meant to be used in grave and exceptional cases to prevent mis-carriage of justice. This article confers on the High Court power of general superitendence to be exercised in its judicial discretion with the object of keeping all courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and seeing that they perform their legal duty in a legal manner. Where the cause of justice is seriously jeopardised the exercise of this power may take the shape of constitutional obligation. Superintendence under this article includes the power to guide and encourage the Judges of the subordinate courts, to direct Subordinate Courts and Tribunals to carry out the orders of the High Court and to direct enquiry with a view to take disciplinary action for flagrant maladministration of justice. The real object of superintendence under this article is that the power may be exercised with reference to the circumstances of each particular case in such a way as to secure the furtherance of justice. The powers under this article can be invoked in cases of grave dereliction of duty for which no other remedy is available and result in serious consequences if not remedied. In cases where grave injustice results by ignoring the provisions of law it becomes the duty of the High Court to interfere and to issue a proper direction to the court or Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of law. The object is not to enable the High Court to correct every error but merely to see that the Subordinate Tribunals are kept within the four corners of law and that they do not act outside the jurisdiction given to them by law. The remedy provided under this article should be resorted to in cases where there is grave failure of justice. Only jurisdictional errors but not mere errors of law can be corrected under this article. If an error whether of fact or law is such that the erroneous decision resulted in the tribunal exercising jurisdiction, not vested in it by law, or in its having failed to execrcise jurisdiction vested in it by law, that will come within the scope of this Article. It is open to the authorities to raise the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue for the decision of the tribunal and the decision can be challenged by them in a proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 in case it was erroneous. It is well settled that "in the absence of very exceptional circumstances, the High Court will not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the order of a tribunal, which is revisable by a superior tribunal constituted by the statute under which those tribunals function where the aggrieved party seeking redress had not first approached the superior tribunals in revision against the order. Without determining the question whether or not it is permissible, as a general rule, for the High Court to interfere under Aricle 227 with orders of tribunals or courts whose orders are, under the law constituting them, appealable or revisable by a superior departmental tribunal, it is clear that it is highly undesirable for this court to exercise this power in such circumstances, in the absence of very exceptional circumstances. Bhola Hardial vs. Kurra Ram.

(2.) In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner herein was the tenant of the respondent herein. But his contention is that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent herein and the petitioner came to an end when an agreement for sale said to have come into existence on 24-7-73 which in effect superseded his earlier agreement of tenancy dt. 13-6-70. It would appear that the petitioner herein has put forward his defence in the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the eviction petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents herein have filed a petition under Sec. 11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and petitioner herein has put forward his defence that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the petition was not maintainable. Further it is the case of the petitioner herein that he has filed a suit against the respondent herein in OS. 1375/81, on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of the agreement dated 24-7-73 alleged to have been executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner herein. His further contention is that in order to avoid conflict of decisions by the Rent Control Court in the Eviction proceedings and the civil court in the suit filed for the specific performance of the agreement, he has come up with the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. As already observed above, when there is a statutory remedy provided under the Rent Control Act, to determine the very question of existence or otherwise of jural relationship between the parties, and if an order is passed by the Rent Controller adverse to the interest of the petitioner herein, he will be entitled to challenge it under the very provisions of that statute by way of an appeal before the appellate authority and further pursue his remedy by way of a Revision to this court if the appellate order goes against him. Thus, in the pre- sence of a statutory and effective remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal and later a revision it is not open to him to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of (he Constitution. It is also open to the petitioner herein to put forward the same contention in the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein under Sec. 11 of the Rent Control Act. The very question of jurisdiction has to be determined by the Rent Control Court both in the eviction proceedings as well as in Sec. 11 petition. In view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy, this petition under Artcle 227 of the Constitution, is not maintainble.

(3.) For these reasons, I do not find any merit in Ihis petition and accordingly the petition is dismissed with costs. CRP dismissed.