LawforAll

▼
Wednesday, October 31, 2018

applications were required to be disposed of on the basis of the Rules in force at the time of the disposal of the applications. = the claim of plaintiff for allotment of additional land of 20.61 acres which can be at best said to be pending on the date of enforcement of Rules, 1983 would have been only dealt with in accordance with Rule 5 of Rules, 1983 and disregard of said Rules the trial court would not have decreed the suit directing the Trust to execute lease in favour of the plaintiff of 20.61 acres of land. The decree of the trial court was clearly in the teeth of the statutory Rules and the High Court committed error in taking the view that Rules, 1983 were not applicable in the present case.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CIVIL APPEAL NO.     10853     of 2018 (arising out of SLP...
Tuesday, October 30, 2018

whether respondent is having personal bonafide necessity or not. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal is set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Having held that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on 6 merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter itself on merits in accordance with law. 16. Since the High Court heard the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an Appellate Court. It is for this reason, in our view, the High Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 17. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in not taking recourse to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal. 18. This approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant (landlady) because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first 7 appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide need.

›
      REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 10811 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. ...

Service matter -whether the reliefs as prayed for can be granted to the respondents, who not only failed to challenge the termination w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government at the relevant time but also failed to challenge the latest policy decision of the State Government noted in communication dated 20th May, 2005, regarding adjustment of the terminated employees on terms and conditions stipulated thereunder and including the terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter dated 16th 25 March, 2007. Neither the single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court has dilated on this aspect at all. = order of termination was the subject matter of the challenge and, having set aside the impugned termination, the court granted consequential relief of reinstatement with back­wages to the concerned petitioner(s). The respondents herein, however, for reasons best known to them, did not challenge the order of termination which event had occurred w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 consequent to abolition of the scheme in which they were employed. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, having acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to be engaged vide appointment letter dated 16th March, 2007.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10806 OF  2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 735...