- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T.A Hameed v. M. Viswanathan .
Factual and Procedural Background
CA No. 8422 of 2001: The appeal was taken up for hearing, but counsel for both sides informed the Court that the matter had been compromised. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous with no order as to costs.
CA No. 1817 of 2004: This appeal, filed by special leave, challenges a Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 31-1-2003 in CRP No. 234 of 1997. The Division Bench of the High Court had referred a single legal question to the Full Bench:
“Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the protection of Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?”
The Full Bench (a) answered the reference in the negative and (b) proceeded, on its own motion, to hear and dismiss the revision petition on the merits, directing the tenant (appellant herein) to surrender possession within six months. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court contending that the Full Bench exceeded its remit by deciding the entire case instead of remitting it to the referring Division Bench.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Full Bench, after answering a specific question referred to it by a Division Bench, can itself decide the underlying case on merits without remitting it to the referring Bench.
- Consequently, whether the Full Bench’s dismissal of the tenant’s revision petition was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Full Bench was required only to answer the referential question and then remit the matter to the Division Bench for final decision.
- Binding authority of the Supreme Court in Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 38, and Kerala State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal Co., (2006) 6 SCC 258, establishes that a larger Bench cannot adjudicate issues beyond the reference.
- Because the Full Bench compelled counsel to argue on the merits, the appellant had no real option but to comply, yet this did not confer jurisdiction on the Full Bench to decide the revision petition.
No detailed arguments from the respondent were recorded in the opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 38 | When a reference is made to a larger Bench, that Bench must answer only the question referred and remit the substantive matter to the appropriate Bench. | Used as primary authority to hold that the Kerala High Court Full Bench erred by deciding the revision petition on merits after answering the reference. |
| Kerala State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal Co., (2006) 6 SCC 258 | Larger Bench cannot adjudicate issues not encompassed by the question referred. | Reinforced the principle from Kesho Nath and supported setting aside the Full Bench’s merits decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the procedural history and noted that only a single legal question had been referred to the Full Bench. Drawing on Kesho Nath Khurana and Kerala State Science & Technology Museum, the Court held that:
- A larger Bench’s jurisdiction in a reference is confined strictly to the question referred.
- After answering the reference, the larger Bench must return the matter to the referring Bench for disposal on merits.
- The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court therefore acted beyond jurisdiction in dismissing the tenant’s revision petition on merits.
Accordingly, that part of the Full Bench’s order which disposed of the revision petition was set aside. The Supreme Court made it explicit that it expressed no opinion on the substantive tenancy question under Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Holding and Implications
CA No. 8422 of 2001: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS.
CA No. 1817 of 2004: ALLOWED IN PART. The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Full Bench’s decision on the merits of the revision petition.
- Revived the tenant’s revision petition and directed that it be placed before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court for expeditious disposal in accordance with law.
Implications are confined to the parties: the tenant regains the opportunity to have the revision petition heard on merits by the proper Bench, and the High Court is reminded that a Bench hearing a reference must not exceed the scope of the questions referred. No new substantive precedent was laid down; the Court merely reinforced existing procedural principles.
Order
CA No. 8422 of 2001
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have compromised the matter and, therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous.
2. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.
CA No. 1817 of 2004
3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-1-2003 passed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 234 of 1997 whereby the learned Full Bench has answered the question referred to it by the Division Bench and while answering the question referred to it, the Full Bench itself decided the case on merits. The grievance of the appellant herein is that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 38 and Kerala State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. (2006) 6 SCC 258 the Full Bench should not have gone on the merits of the matter and the Full Bench should have after answering the reference remitted the matter back to the Division Bench for deciding the civil revision petition.
4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that a reference was made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, which reads as under:
“Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the protection of Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?”
5. This reference was answered by the Full Bench in para 18 of the impugned order in the following words:
“the benefits under Section 11(17) to the legal heirs/tenants cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law”.
6. In para 19 of the impugned order the learned Full Bench asked counsel for both the parties to advance arguments on merits also as the proceedings were initiated about a decade back and asked counsel for the parties for disposing of the revision petition itself and accordingly arguments were heard on merits of the revision petition also and revision petition was disposed of by dismissing the same and directing the appellant tenant to surrender possession within six months and directing the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect.
7. Aggrieved against the said order dated 31-1-2003 of the Full Bench, the present appeal by special leave has been filed before this Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Full Bench should not have disposed of the revision petition on merits. He further submitted that once the Court directed the counsel for the parties to make submission on merits, they had no option but to address the Court on merits of the matter. He, however, submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Kesho Nath 1981 Supp SCC 38 and Kerala State Science (2006) 6 SCC 258 the Full Bench should not have decided the revision petition on merits and after answering the reference made to it by the Division Bench, it should have remitted the revision petition to the Division Bench for decision in accordance with law. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct.
9. In Kesho Nath 1981 Supp SCC 38 in almost identical situation, this Court has taken the view that when a reference is made to a larger Bench, the larger Bench should answer the reference and thereafter remit the case to the appropriate Bench for decision on merits. In that case also the learned Single Judge had referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question
“1. … Whether the order dated January 21, 1963 made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was final and binding in the present appeal, and if so, what is its effect upon the point in controversy in the present appeal?”
The Division Bench by order dated 7-4-1980 disposed of the appeal on merits and dismissed it with costs and held that the order dated 21-1-1963 made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not final and binding in the civil proceedings and it did not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide whether there was any encroachment by the respondent on the property conveyed to the appellant under the sale certificate dated 7-6-1963 read with the corrigendum dated 22-9-1964 issued by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Simla, pursuant to the auction-sale held on 25-9-1955.
10. This Court held that it is obvious that since only the aforesaid question of law was referred by the Single Judge to the Division Bench, the Division Bench should have sent the matter back to the Single Judge after deciding the question of law referred to them. But instead the Division Bench proceeded to dispose of the second appeal on merits and dismissed it with costs. This Court further observed that: (Kesho Nath case 1981 Supp SCC 38)
“1. … We think that the Division Bench was in error in following this procedure. The Division Bench ought to have sent the appeal back to the Single Judge with the answer rendered by them to the question referred by the Single Judge and left it to the Single Judge to dispose of the second appeal according to law.”
11. Same view was reiterated by this Court in Kerala State Science (2006) 6 SCC 258. In that case this Court after referring to earlier decisions in para 8 held as under:
“8. It is fairly well settled that when reference is made on a specific issue either by a learned Single Judge or Division Bench to a larger Bench i.e Division Bench or Full Bench or Constitution Bench, as the case may be, the larger Bench cannot adjudicate upon an issue which is not the question referred to.”
12. In the case at hand also, almost an identical situation had taken place that a reference was made by the learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to the Full Bench and the Full Bench after answering the reference went on to decide the revision petition itself on merits, which the Full Bench had no jurisdiction to do as the revision petition was not referred to the Full Bench for decision. Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench, the Full Bench should have answered the question referred to it and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits. Consequently, we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31-1-2003 whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.
13. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the issue which was referred by the Division Bench to the Full Bench. We are only examining the matter whether the Full Bench could have disposed of the revision petition itself or not. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal to the extent that the order of the Full Bench deciding the civil revision petition filed by the appellant herein was decided on merits by the Full Bench was not correct. The revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand revived and be placed for hearing before a Division Bench, which shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Since the matter is old, we request the Division Bench to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously.
14. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicted hereinabove. No order as to costs.
Alert