- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vidhi Shanker v. Heera Lal .
Factual and Procedural Background
Leave to appeal was granted against an order of the High Court concerning a shop premises occupied by the appellant. In the High Court, the appellant sought time to vacate the shop and obtained time on the basis of an undertaking to hand over vacant possession (to the plaintiff-respondent or the trial court) and to pay any arrears of rent due. After obtaining such time, the appellant secured special leave and pursued the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the High Court’s findings, given that the appellant had obtained time in the High Court on the basis of an undertaking to vacate and pay rent arrears.
- Whether, despite dismissal of the appeal, the appellant should be granted further time to vacate the premises on agreed terms.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that it was not entering into the merits of the underlying dispute. It relied instead on the appellant’s conduct: the appellant had given an undertaking before the High Court and obtained time for delivery of vacant and peaceful possession on that basis, and then obtained special leave from the Supreme Court. The Court held that, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, it would be improper to interfere with the High Court’s findings after such an undertaking had been given and advantage taken of the time granted.
At the same time, considering that the appellant was carrying on business in the premises and that the respondent had no objection, the Court granted limited additional time to vacate, subject to the appellant furnishing the usual undertaking within four weeks.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED on the terms that the appellant is allowed time up to May 31, 1987 to vacate and hand over possession, subject to furnishing the usual undertaking within four weeks from the date of the order.
No order as to costs was made. The direct effect is that the High Court’s order stands and the appellant must vacate by the extended deadline on compliance with the undertaking requirement; the Court stated no broader implications and set no new precedent.
Order
We find that leave to appeal was granted in this matter from the order of the High Court. Counsel for the appellant sought for time to vacate the shop in question and time was allowed to the appellant on the ground that he would hand over vacant possession of the shop either to the plaintiff-respondent or to the trial court and would also pay all the arrears of the rent, if any, due against him. Upon this undertaking, the High Court records, time was given to the appellant for delivering vacant peaceful possession. Taking advantage of this the appellant has obtained special leave. We are of the opinion that whatever be the merits of the case upon which we do not propose to enter, in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not be proper, after such an undertaking was given in the High Court and time obtained on the basis of such undertaking, to interfere with the findings made by the High Court. In that view of the matter this appeal must be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the appellant is carrying on business in the premises in question the respondent has no objection if the appellant is allowed time up to May 31, 1987 to vacate and hand over the possession upon furnishing usual undertaking within four weeks from today. The time is given to the appellant as the counsel for the respondent agrees to give this time. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Appeal is dismissed upon the aforesaid terms.
Alert