Dey(Baxi) Vs. Mira Das  INSC 1207 (14 July 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4335 OF
2009 [Arising out of SLP)No.16824 of 2008] Dipali Dey (Baxi) ....Appellant
VERSUS Mira Das ....Respondent
In our view, the High Court had acted in excess of its
jurisdiction by interfering with the concurrent orders passed by the courts
below allowing an application for injunction directing the respondent to
restore the electric supply in the suit premises in favour of the appellant who
is a divorcee residing in the same with her son. The suit that has been filed
by the appellant is for declaration that she is a tenant in respect of the
premises in question at a 1 rental of Rs.150/- per month. The case made out in
the plaint is, inter alia, to the effect that she has been paying the rent but
no rent receipts had been granted to her. Since the electric supply was disconnected
by the respondent, she filed an application for injunction directing the
respondent to restore the electric supply in her tenanted premises. Both the
courts below concurrently allowed the application and directed restoration of
electric supply to the tenanted premises where the appellant is residing.
Against these orders, a revision was moved by the respondent which was allowed
by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
appellant has come up before this Court by way of a special leave petition,
which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of learned counsel for the
In our view, as noted herein earlier, the High Court was not
justified in interfering with the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below
directing the landlord to restore the electric supply in the suit 2 premises.
The question whether the appellant is a tenant or not shall be gone into at the
time of disposal of the suit when the evidence would be produced by the parties
in support of their respective cases. Since there is no dispute that the
appellant is in possession of the suit premises claiming to be a tenant, the
electric supply to the premises in question should be restored. Therefore, the
High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution
ought not to have interfered with the concurrent orders of the Courts below.
(See: The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyd.
And and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyd. [AIR 1973 SC 76].
That being the position, the impugned order is set aside and the
orders passed by the courts below are restored. However, considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case, we direct that 3 Suit No.150/2001 and
eviction suit being T.S.No.166 of 2001 filed by the respondent, both pending in
the same court, shall be disposed of within six months from the date of supply
of a copy of this order to the trial court without granting any unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The
appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to
..................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]