NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4335 OF 2009   [Arising out of SLP©No.16824 of 2008]

Dipali Dey (Baxi)              ….Appellant

VERSUS

Mira Das           ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In our view, the High Court had acted in excess of  

its  jurisdiction  by  interfering  with  the  concurrent  

orders  passed  by  the  courts  below  allowing  an  

application for injunction directing the respondent  

to restore the electric supply in the suit premises in  

favour of the appellant who is a divorcee residing in  

the same with her son. The suit that has been filed  

by  the  appellant  is  for  declaration  that  she  is  a  

tenant in respect of the premises in question at a  

1

rental of Rs.150/- per month.  The case made out in  

the plaint is, inter alia, to the effect that she has  

been paying the rent but no rent receipts had been  

granted  to  her.   Since  the  electric  supply  was  

disconnected  by  the  respondent,  she  filed  an  

application for injunction directing the respondent  

to  restore  the  electric  supply  in  her  tenanted  

premises.   Both  the  courts  below  concurrently  

allowed the application and directed restoration of  

electric supply to the tenanted premises where the  

appellant  is  residing.   Against  these  orders,  a  

revision was moved by the respondent which was  

allowed by the High Court.  Feeling aggrieved by the  

order of the High Court, the appellant has come up  

before this Court by way of a special leave petition,  

which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence  

of learned counsel for the parties.

3. In our view, as noted herein earlier, the High Court  

was not justified in interfering with the concurrent  

orders  passed  by  the  Courts  below  directing  the  

landlord  to  restore  the  electric  supply  in  the  suit  

2

premises.  The question whether the appellant is a  

tenant  or  not  shall  be  gone  into  at  the  time  of  

disposal  of  the  suit  when  the  evidence  would  be  

produced  by  the  parties  in  support  of  their  

respective cases.  Since there is no dispute that the  

appellant  is  in  possession  of  the  suit  premises  

claiming to be a tenant, the electric supply to the  

premises in question should be restored.  Therefore,  

the High Court, in the exercise of its power under  

Article  227 of  the  Constitution ought not  to  have  

interfered with the concurrent orders of the Courts  

below.   (See:  The  Managing  Director  (MIG)  

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyd. And  

Anr. Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase  

and  Stores)  Hindustan  Aeronautics  Ltd.,  

Balanagar, Hyd. [AIR 1973 SC 76].     

4. That being the position, the impugned order is set  

aside and the orders passed by the courts below are  

restored.  However,  considering  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  present case,  we direct  that  

3

Suit  No.150/2001  and  eviction  suit  being  

T.S.No.166  of  2001  filed  by  the  respondent,  both  

pending  in  the  same  court,  shall  be  disposed  of  

within six months from the date of supply of a copy  

of this order to the trial court without granting any  

unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.  

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set  

aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated  

above. There will be no order as to costs.  

…….………………………J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

New Delhi;                                   …….…………………….J. July 14, 2009.        [ R.M. LODHA ]              

4