“Fifty percent of our orders will also be reversed if there were a higher court,” observed the Supreme Court on Monday, suggesting that the top court refrain from intervening in a matter if all subordinate courts concur in their decision.
Justice Sanjay K Kaul, heading a three-judge-bench, made this avowal while asserting that there has to be an end to appeals against every order passed by subordinate courts. The bench, which also included justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, was categorical that the Supreme Court should be wary of interference when subordinate courts at all levels have decided in unison about a certain class of dispute.
As a matter of principle, said the bench, the apex court should not interfere when there are concurrent findings by all the subordinate courts.
“If we (SC) start looking at every matter with extreme minuteness and subjectivity, we will not be able to perform the duty this court is expected to do. There has to be some consistency in the decision-making and if start making exceptions, then there is a problem,” remarked justice Kaul.
The judge added that certain definitive principles should be followed by the Supreme Court and that it cannot be called upon to interfere as the fourth court. “This has to end at some point. We always say it, 50 percent of our orders will also be reversed if there were a court above us,” said justice Kaul. The appeal in the present matter had arisen out of a decision by the Delhi high court on December 2 in a case relating to eviction of a tenant. The additional rent controller and the rent control tribunal issued the order of eviction against the petitioner, Arya Kanya Pathshala, from a tenanted premise in Delhi owing to its default in paying for misuse of the property in question. The high court found no fault with this order of eviction.
{{/usCountry}}The judge added that certain definitive principles should be followed by the Supreme Court and that it cannot be called upon to interfere as the fourth court. “This has to end at some point. We always say it, 50 percent of our orders will also be reversed if there were a court above us,” said justice Kaul. The appeal in the present matter had arisen out of a decision by the Delhi high court on December 2 in a case relating to eviction of a tenant. The additional rent controller and the rent control tribunal issued the order of eviction against the petitioner, Arya Kanya Pathshala, from a tenanted premise in Delhi owing to its default in paying for misuse of the property in question. The high court found no fault with this order of eviction.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate PS Narasimha, appearing for Pathshala, requested the bench to entertain the appeal on humanitarian grounds as the petitioner taught girl students.
But the bench said it will not be proper to interfere with the concurrent findings of three courts.
“This court has taken a consistent view in the rent and eviction matters, there should be no interference by this court. There are findings by three courts below. Why should we interfere now? If we do it in one case, this will not be good for the consistency,” added the bench.
The bench gave the petitioner time till June 30 to vacate the premises.