News By/Courtesy: MAAHI TRIVEDI | 01 Aug 2021 17:33pm IST


  • The matter is a dispute between the tenant and the landlord as to how the ancient structure should be repaired.
  • The court stated that the High Court did not explain in the challenged decision how it was convinced that building stability would be rehabilitated in a guided way.
  • Consequently, the bench approved the appeal.

The Supreme Court emphasized that its competence to admit the 'hotly contested matter of facts' cannot be invoked in writing by the High Court. It is not the High Court's responsibility to evaluate contradictory technical findings in a comparative way and to decide which ones are admissible, stated Justice Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian. This lawsuit stems from an argument between the landlord and a renter about an ancient building's repair. In the writing petitions submitted by the tenant, the Bombay High Court issued the judgment providing the freedom for architects to start work to remove a wall at their own risk and at their own expense. The written petition against the Municipal Corporation's notice in accordance with Article 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act was tabled.

The Court of Apex, in its appeal by the landlord, pointed out that, in contradictory reports and a previous report by the Technical Advisory Committee, the High Court made a significant mistake in mandating removal from a wall based on judgments of other architects that the structure is of C-1 status. "26. It is generally agreed that the High Court does not determine highly contested matters of fact by exercising its exceptional authority in writing according to Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It is not for the High Court to analyze contradictory technical findings in a comparative manner and to determine which reports are admissible ", said the bench.

"The petitioner also agrees to supply Rs.2000/- for freight expenses. In the case that the respondent is not prepared to pay the rent, the petitioner agrees to offer alternative lodgings in a transit camp, from the date of vacation in the premises concerned until the competent authority has issued a completion certificate. Note that if the respondent consents to the same, the petitioner will comply with the requirements of the offer "There was a mistake". The Court stated in the contested ruling that the High Court did not explain how the stability of the structure might be restored in the way indicated. Therefore, the bench made the appeal possible.

Section Editor: Lucky Sinha | 01 Aug 2021 19:24pm IST



Latest News

Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.