Skip to content


Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 21557 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1985Kant149
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24; Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 - Sections 5, 7 and 10
AppellantRitz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd.
RespondentState of Karnataka and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB.S. Indrakala, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateUdaya Shankar, Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....under the provisions of the act and has passed an order of eviction of the petitioner from both the hotel premises. it is further submitted that respondents 3 and 4 enjoy appellate jurisdiction under the act; thus, both the district judge at mysore as well as the district judge mandya enjoy the appellate jurisdiction under the act, against an order passed by the competent officer under s......krishnaraja sagar is situated in the district of mandya whereas hotel metropole is situated in mysore district at mysore. as the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the lease, the second respondent (the competent officer) has initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the act and has passed an order of eviction of the petitioner from both the hotel premises. it is against this order of eviction, the petition has preferred the aforesaid appeals before respondents 3 and 4. having regard to the fact that hotel metropole is situated at mysore and hotel krishnaraja sagar is situated at krishnasagar which comes under mandya district m.a. no. 26/1983 which pertains to hotel krishnaraja sagar is preferred before respondent no. 4 and m.a. no. 13/1983 which relates to hotel.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for transfer of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26/1983, pending on the file of the 4th respondent, to the 3rd respondent for being heard and decided along with the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13/1983 which is pending on the file of the 3rd respondent.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Competent Officer (Respondent No. 2) under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The two premises known as Hotel Metropole, and Hotel Krishna Raja Sagara situated at Mysore and Krishnaraja Sagara respectively were leased to the petitioner. Hotel Krishnaraja sagar is situated in the District of Mandya whereas Hotel Metropole is situated in Mysore District at Mysore. As the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the lease, the second respondent (the Competent Officer) has initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the Act and has passed an order of eviction of the petitioner from both the Hotel premises. It is against this order of eviction, the petition has preferred the aforesaid appeals before respondents 3 and 4. Having regard to the fact that Hotel Metropole is situated at Mysore and Hotel Krishnaraja sagar is situated at Krishnasagar which comes under Mandya District M.A. No. 26/1983 which pertains to Hotel Krishnaraja sagar is preferred before respondent No. 4 and M.A. No. 13/1983 which relates to Hotel Metropole at Mysore is preferred before the 3rd respondent.

3. It is submitted that as both the appeals arise out of the one order passed by the Competent Officer in one and the same proceeding and the lease deed pertaining to both the premises is also one and the same, if the appeals are to be decided by two different appellate Authorities, there is every likelihood of conflict of decisions. It is further submitted that respondents 3 and 4 enjoy appellate jurisdiction under the Act; therefore, in the, interest of justice and to avoid conflict of decisions, it is just and necessary to transfer the appeal pending on the file of the 4th respondent to the file of the 3rd respondent.

4. Section 10 of the Act provides for an appeal against an order passed by the competent officer falling under S. 5 or S. 7 of the act. To an appellate Officer who shall be the district Judge having the jurisdiction over the area. Thus, both the district Judge at Mysore as well as the district Judge Mandya enjoy the appellate jurisdiction under the Act, against an order passed by the competent officer under S. 5 or 7 of the Act, in respect of any public premises situated within their respective jurisdictions. Therefore it cannot be said that the District Judge at Mysore not competent to try or decide, or does have jurisdiction to decide the appeal preferred under S. 10A the Act. Competent to try or decide means competent to try or decide the subject-matter involved in a case, a suit, proceeding or an appeal. It has no reference to the territorial jurisdiction. What all is necessary is that the Court of the authority to which a case, a suit or a proceeding or an appeal is transferred must be enjoying the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such case, suit, proceeding or appeal if such case, suit proceedings or appeal arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

5.The High Court enjoys under Art. 127 of the Constitution, not only the power of administrative superintendence but also the power of judicial control over the inferior courts, Tribunals and all other quasi Judicial authorities which, though not called as tribunals, but nevertheless, exercise judicial power of the State therefore, in cases where S. 24 of the Civil P.C., is not attracted, Art. 227 of the Constitution enables the High Court to transfer the eases, proceedings, or appeals from one Tribunal or authority to another tribunal or authority provided the tribunal or the authority to which the case or the proceedings or the appeal is transferred, is competent to try and decide the same.

6. Hence, I am of the view that in order to avoid conflicting decisions being rendered by the two appellate authorities in one and the same proceeding, though two appeals are preferred, it is just and necessary to transfer, the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26 of 1983 pending on the file of the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent.

7. Accordingly, the 4th respondent is directed to transmit the Miscellaneous Appeal No.26 of 1983 along with the records to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondents is directed to decide Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26 of 1983 transmitted by the 4th respondent along with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 1983 pending on his file.

8. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //