Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Supreme Court Restores Lower Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in a landlord-tenant dispute between Tek Singh and Shashi Verma. The case revolved around the possession of a shop in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, and whether the tenant was wrongfully dispossessed. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural law and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Background of the Case

Shashi Verma, the respondent, filed a civil suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, claiming that she was wrongfully dispossessed from Shop No. 3 in Anand Complex, Solan. She sought a declaration of her tenancy rights and a permanent prohibitory injunction against Tek Singh, the appellant. The appellant, however, contended that he had been in possession of the shop as a tenant since 2004 under the landlady, who was also a respondent in the case.

Lower Court Findings

The Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge ruled in favor of Tek Singh, concluding that he had been the rightful tenant since 2004. The courts emphasized that there was no evidence that he had vacated the premises or surrendered possession. The courts also noted that granting the injunction sought by the respondent would effectively amount to decreeing the suit at the interim stage.

High Court’s Reversal

In a surprising turn, a Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the lower courts’ concurrent findings and allowed the revision petition. The High Court was seemingly influenced by a police complaint filed by the respondent, which suggested that dispossession was acknowledged.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s decision, stating:

“We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has been thrown to the winds by the impugned judgment.”

The Court emphasized that Section 115 of the CPC, as amended in 1999, limits the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It quoted past judgments, reinforcing that revisional jurisdiction is only meant for correcting jurisdictional errors, not for reevaluating facts.

Key Judicial Reasoning

• The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised only for jurisdictional errors, not for factual reevaluation.
• Interim mandatory injunctions require a higher threshold than prima facie cases, which the High Court failed to consider.
• The suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is summary in nature and should be expedited rather than entangled in prolonged revisions.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court restored the judgments of the lower courts. It directed the trial court to expedite the case and dispose of it within six months. The judgment reinforced the importance of procedural compliance and the limited scope of revisional intervention.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the sanctity of procedural law and the dangers of revisional overreach by High Courts.

Petitioner Name: Tek Singh.
Respondent Name: Shashi Verma.
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 04-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Tek Singh vs Shashi Verma Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-02-2019.pdf