Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajendra Diwan vs Pradeep Kumar Ranibala on 19 April, 2017
Bench: Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.3613/2016
RAJENDRA DIWAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for stay and office report)
WITH
C.A. No. 10214/2016
(With appln.for stay and Office Report)
C.A. No. 3051/2017
(With applmn.for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place
addl. documents on record and stay and Office Report)
Date : 19/04/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Shriram P. Pingle,Adv.
Mr. Anand Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais,Adv.
Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Verma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. J.K. Gilda, AG
State of Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv.
Chhattisgarh Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv.
Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Deepayan Mandeep, Adv.
Mr. Konark Tyagi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Signature Not Verified
O R D E R
Digitally signed by USHA RANI BHARDWAJ Date: 2017.04.22 11:43:42 IST Reason: The appellants-tenants in these appeals have come to this Court against the order of eviction passed by 2 the Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur under Section 13(2) of the Chhatisgarh Rent Control Act 2011. Under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act the appeal lies only before the Supreme Court of India. When the matter came up for hearing on 18th April, 2016 this Court passed the following order:
“The instant appeal purports to be a statutory appeal pursuant to Section 13 sub-Section (2) of the The Chhatisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 which reads as under:-
“13. Appeal – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, a landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any order of the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal in the prescribed manner within the prescribed time to the Rent Control Tribunal.
(2) Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal shall lie with the Supreme Court.” The appellant is a tenant who suffered a decree for eviction. Though, the appeal purports to be the statutory appeal, we have serious doubt about the maintainability of the instant appeal as, in our opinion, the legislature of the State of Chhatisgarh lacks competence to provide appeals directly to this Court. The jurisdiction of the Court could be the subject matter properly only of a legislation of the Parliament in view of the Scheme of the Constitution emanating from Article 246 read with Entry 77 of the List 1 of the Seventh 3 Schedule and Entries 65 and 46 of List 2 and List 3 of the Seventh Schedule.
While Entry 77 of List 1 expressly recognizes the authority of the Parliament to deal with the constitution and organization of this Court, the other two Entries recognize the legislative competence of the State Legislatures to deal with the jurisdiction of all Courts except this Court.
Therefore, in view of the importance of the question involved, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to learned Attorney General and learned Advocate General of the State of Chhatisgarh. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
List the matter on 2nd May, 2016.
In view of the pending inquiry, we also deem it appropriate to stay the operation of the impugned order for a period of three weeks.
In view of the question indicated above, we also deem it appropriate that State of Chhatisgarh be made party respondent to these proceedings.” Today we have heard the learned Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the Rent Control Act of Chhattisgarh, 2011 had received the assent of the President of India. The learned Advocate General also made an attempt to defend 4 the legislation by inviting our attention to Article 138(2), in addition to other arguments.
Having heard learned counsel and learned Advocate General we are of the view that this issue involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and therefore, we are of the view, that these cases should be heard by a Coram as required under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India.
Place these appeals before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for further directions.
(USHA BHARDWAJ) (RENU DIWAN)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR