- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Noorali Abdulla Modi (Dead) By Lrs. v. Suresh Motilal Talerja And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The order concerns a special leave petition challenging a High Court decision that dismissed a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the High Court, the petitioner sought enforcement of an alleged promise by the owner/landlord of a building to provide the petitioner alternative accommodation. The petitioner also sought relief against the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, which had deleted a provision/condition stating that alternative accommodation would be given to the petitioner in a newly constructed building. The Supreme Court noted that a civil suit regarding the alleged promise was stated to be pending. The Court also allowed a substitution application “as prayed for.”
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a claim seeking enforcement of an alleged promise by a building owner/landlord to provide alternative accommodation can be pursued in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether questions as to whether such a promise was made and, if made, whether it is enforceable, are capable of being adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.
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 held that the High Court correctly rejected the Article 226 petition because the principal relief sought was the enforcement of an alleged promise by the owner of the building to provide alternative accommodation. The Court reasoned that determining whether any such promise was actually made, and if so, whether it is enforceable, involves questions not capable of being agitated in proceedings under Article 226.
On the facts stated in the writ petition, the Court concluded that the dispute was essentially one appropriate for adjudication through a civil suit. The Court recorded that it was informed that such a civil suit was already pending. Given this, the special leave petition challenging the High Court’s writ-order was found to be unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The special leave petition was dismissed as unsustainable.
The dismissal was expressly without prejudice to any rights the petitioner may have arising from (i) the alleged promise of the landlord, or (ii) the deleted condition originally imposed by the concerned authorities regarding alternative accommodation. The Court expressed no view on the merits of those matters and left it open to the petitioner to pursue them before the appropriate forum (including by civil suit). No broader legal principle or new precedent was articulated beyond the conclusion that such disputed promise-enforcement questions are not suitable for determination in Article 226 proceedings on the facts presented.
Order
1. Substitution, as prayed for, is allowed.
2. This special leave petition is against an order of the High Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, in our view, was right in rejecting the petition because the relief sought was the enforcement of a promise alleged to have been made by the owner of the building in question to accommodate the petitioner by providing him with an alternative accommodation. Whether or not any such promise was made or, if made, whether it was enforceable is a question which is not capable of being agitated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The petitioner had also in the writ petition in the High Court sought relief against the Urban Land Ceiling Authority which had deleted a provision to the effect that an alternative accommodation would be given to the petitioner in the newly constructed building.
4. From the facts stated in the writ petition, it is clear that the relief sought in the High Court was enforcement of a promise allegedly made by the owner of the building. Any such promise, assuming it has been made, is a matter which can be agitated by means of a civil suit. We are told that such a suit is pending.
5. In the circumstances, the special leave petition challenging the impugned order of the High Court made under Article 226 of the Constitution is unsustainable and is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to whatever right the petitioner has arising from the alleged promise of the landlord or the deleted condition which had been originally imposed by the concerned authorities. This is a matter on which we express no view and it is open to the petitioner to pursue it before the appropriate forum.
Alert