Suresh Chand Rastogi vs Ashok (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Others

Sheel Nagu, Judge

This petition under Article 227 Constitution of India, assails the interlocutory order dated 24/02/2012, whereby an application u/s 148 of CPC preferred by defendant/tenant seeking condonation of delay in depositing the arrears of rent has been allowed while an application u/s 13(6) M.P. Accommodation Act preferred by plaintiff landlord for striking out defence of the defendant has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

The trial court while condoning the negligible delay on the part of the tenant in depositing the arrears of rent has placed reliance on Ganesh Prasad Vs. Asdullah Asmani ILR (2010) MP 2528.

Learned counsel for petitioner basically contended that as regards the period subsequent to institution of suit the delay has been rightly condoned, but for the period prior to the institution of suit, the delay in depositing of arrears of rent has wrongly been condoned as no application of mind has taken place for doing so.

Without entering into the merits of the matter this court is conscious of the fact that while scrutinizing the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order, this court exercises supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore is constrained by the extremely limited jurisdiction which is available only in cases where the court below transgresses it''s jurisdictional limits or passed an order in blatant disregard of the settled law causing grave injustice. The parameter of the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are well defined by the Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, perusal of which makes it clear that even if the order of subordinate court is erroneous the same cannot be interfered with.

In the instant case, the view taken by the trail court is one of the views available to it in the law which cannot be said to transgress any jurisdictional limits set by law. Moreover, no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner merely on account of the impugned order.

In view of the above said conspectus of facts, this court declines to invoke it''s limited supervisory jurisdiction available to it under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Consequently, petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.