HC admonishes appellate authority

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished an “appellate authority” for issuing conflicting judgments on the same day in four eviction cases concerning the same property and parties. Justice Alka Sarin also set aside the conflicting orders after terming the situation “incomprehensible”.

“Strangely the appellate authority, before which four eviction cases were listed pertaining to the very same property, has passed conflicting judgments qua the same very property and between the same parties. It is incomprehensible as to how an authority, who is dealing with the cases simultaneously on the same date can pass conflicting judgments in cases between the same party and pertaining to the same premises on the same grounds,” Justice Sarin asserted.

The dispute pertains to shop-cum-office in Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. The landlord had filed two eviction petitions in 1998, alleging subletting and change of user, which were allowed by the rent controller – an authority handling disputes between landlords and tenants – in 2011. The orders were challenged by the tenant, but the appellate authority, on January 31, 2015, dismissed the appeals.

Justice Sarin’s Bench was told that the landlord had separately filed two more eviction petitions in 2001, which were dismissed by the rent controller in 2014. On January 31, 2015, the appellate authority dismissed the landlord’s appeals in these cases, resulting in contradictory orders.

Summing up the anomalies, Justice Sarin asserted: “Six revision petitions are – two by the tenant against the orders of both the authorities ordering his eviction; two by the landlord against the orders of both the authorities dismissing the ejectment applications; and two by the tenant against the orders passed by the appellate authority assessing the mesne profits.” Justice Sarin said the court was refraining itself from commenting on the appellate authority’s conduct. But the impugned orders of the common date, January 31, 2015, passed by the appellate authority in four revisions were set aside keeping in view the glaring facts.

The matter was remanded back to the successor appellate authority concerned for afresh decision on merits. The two other orders assessing mesne profits were also set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the successor appellate authority.