# RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3613 of 2016
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajendra-diwan-v-pradeep-kumar-ranibala-anr-33628
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 - s. 13(2) - Appeal
against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to Supreme Court -
Validity of s.13(2) - Held: On a conjoint reading of Art. 323B and
Arts. 245 and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh
Schedule, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature was competent to enact
the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for the
adjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent by
the Rent Controller, and creates a Tribunal to decide appeals from
orders of the Rent Controller - However, Entry 64 of the State List
and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List expressly debar the State
Legislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court - Also Art. 200 cannot validate an ultra vires
enactment which the concerned Legislature lacked competence to
enact - Thus, s. 13(2) providing for direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, is not
ancillary or incidental to the power of the Chhattisgarh State
Legislature to enact a Rent Control Act, which provides for
appellate adjudication of appeals relating to tenancy and rent by
a Tribunal - In enacting s. 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, the
Chhattisgarh State Legislature overtly transgressed the limits of its
legislative power - Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently
lacked competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh - Thus, s.
13(2) is declared ultra vires the Constitution, null and void and of
no effect - Constitution of India - Art. 323B and Arts. 245 and
246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule.
Constitution of India - Vires of any enactment -
Consideration of - Held: Is to be seen, whether looking at the
legislation as a whole, it can be said to be a legislation,
 [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089
1089
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
substantially with respect to any of the matters, with regard to which
the Legislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Article
of the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List in the
Seventh Schedule thereto - Once it is held that it is so, the
legislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to all
ancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to be
comprehended in that arena - Furthermore, while the widest
amplitude should be given to the language used in one entry, every
attempt has to be made to harmonize its contents with those of other
Entries, so that the latter may not be rendered nugatory -
Interpretation of Statutes.
Constitution of India - Art. 245 - Laws made by Parliament
and by the Legislature of States - Power to legislate - Held: Both
the Union legislature and the State Legislature derive their power
to legislate from Art. 245 - Legislature of a State may only make
laws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliament may
make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India -
There is no provision in the Constitution which saves State laws
with extra-territorial operation, similar to Art. 245(2) which
expressly saves Union laws with extra-territorial operation, enacted
by Parliament - Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently lacks
competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh.
Constitution of India - Art. 138 - Enlargement of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - Term 'special agreement' u/
Art 138(2) - Held: Art. 138(2) provides that the Supreme Court
shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any
matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State
may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for
the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court
- Special agreement, means, an independent agreement arrived at
between the Government of India and the Government of a State
through deliberations and n

## Text

_Characters 0–39,793 of 85,319. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39793 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1089
RAJENDRA DIWAN
v.
PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3613 of 2016)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 - s. 13(2) - Appeal
against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to Supreme Court -
Validity of s.13(2) - Held: On a conjoint reading of Art. 323B and
Arts. 245 and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh
Schedule, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature was competent to enact
the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for the
adjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent by
the Rent Controller, and creates a Tribunal to decide appeals from
orders of the Rent Controller - However, Entry 64 of the State List
and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List expressly debar the State
Legislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court - Also Art. 200 cannot validate an ultra vires
enactment which the concerned Legislature lacked competence to
enact - Thus, s. 13(2) providing for direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, is not
ancillary or incidental to the power of the Chhattisgarh State
Legislature to enact a Rent Control Act, which provides for
appellate adjudication of appeals relating to tenancy and rent by
a Tribunal - In enacting s. 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, the
Chhattisgarh State Legislature overtly transgressed the limits of its
legislative power - Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently
lacked competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh - Thus, s.
13(2) is declared ultra vires the Constitution, null and void and of
no effect - Constitution of India - Art. 323B and Arts. 245 and
246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule.
Constitution of India - Vires of any enactment -
Consideration of - Held: Is to be seen, whether looking at the
legislation as a whole, it can be said to be a legislation,
 [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089
1089
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
substantially with respect to any of the matters, with regard to which
the Legislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Article
of the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List in the
Seventh Schedule thereto - Once it is held that it is so, the
legislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to all
ancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to be
comprehended in that arena - Furthermore, while the widest
amplitude should be given to the language used in one entry, every
attempt has to be made to harmonize its contents with those of other
Entries, so that the latter may not be rendered nugatory -
Interpretation of Statutes.
Constitution of India - Art. 245 - Laws made by Parliament
and by the Legislature of States - Power to legislate - Held: Both
the Union legislature and the State Legislature derive their power
to legislate from Art. 245 - Legislature of a State may only make
laws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliament may
make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India -
There is no provision in the Constitution which saves State laws
with extra-territorial operation, similar to Art. 245(2) which
expressly saves Union laws with extra-territorial operation, enacted
by Parliament - Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently lacks
competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh.
Constitution of India - Art. 138 - Enlargement of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - Term 'special agreement' u/
Art 138(2) - Held: Art. 138(2) provides that the Supreme Court
shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any
matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State
may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for
the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court
- Special agreement, means, an independent agreement arrived at
between the Government of India and the Government of a State
through deliberations and negotiations and not just an approval
of legislation by the President on the aid and advice of the Council
of Ministers - In any case, the Supreme Court may exercise further
jurisdiction pursuant to a special agreement between the
Government of India and the State Government on any particular
issue, provided Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such
jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
Constitution of India - Art. 200, second proviso - Assent to
Bills - Requirement of - Held: Art. 200 requires Bills passed by
the Legislative Assembly of a State, or in case of a State having a
Legislative Council, a bill passed by both the houses of the
Legislature of the State, to be presented to the Governor for assent
- Such Bills become law on receipt of assent of the Governor -
Second proviso to Art. 200, prohibits the Governor from assenting
to a Bill, which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became
law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court, as to
endanger the position which the High Court is, by the Constitution,
design to fill - Governor is obliged to reserve such bill for the
consideration of the President - Presidential assent is imperative
in the case of law enacted by a State Legislature, which would
derogate from the powers of the High Court, as to endanger the
position which that Court is, by the Constitution, designed to fill -
Second proviso to Art. 200 is not attracted in the case of s. 13(2)
of the Rent Control Act, since it does not derogate from any power
of the High Court - Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
Constitution of India - Arts. 226 and 227 - Power of
superintendence of the High Court under - Held: Power of
superintendence conferred by Art. 227 is, supervisory and not
appellate - This power is to be exercised sparingly, to keep
subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority
- High Court interferes only when there is grave miscarriage of
justice or flagrant violation of law - Interference is restricted to
cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision;
perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of
principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation
of powers - High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the
evidence and/or materials on record - Exercise of writ jurisdiction
by the High Court to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal
would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case - Writ
jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an
alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision
of appeal in the eye of law.
Answering the question referred, the Court
HELD: 1. The State Legislature lacked legislative
competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
Control Act, 2011. Therefore, Section 13(2) of the Rent Control
Act is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and
void and of no effect. [Para 89] [1127-E]
L Chandrakumar v. Union of India and others AIR
(1997) SC 125 - followed.
H.S. Yadav v. Shakuntala Devi Parakh (2019) 10
SCC 265 - relied on.
2. Art. 246 of the Constitution, which distributes legislative
powers between the Union Legislature and the State Legislature,
confers exclusive power to Parliament to make laws in respect
of the matters specified in List I in the Seventh Schedule, that
is, the Union List. The Union Parliament also has, subject to
Clause (3) of Art. 246, the power to make laws with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh
Schedule, that is, the Concurrent List. The State Legislature has
exclusive power to make laws with respect to matters
enumerated in the State List, subject to Clauses (1) and (2) of
Art. 246. Along with the Union Legislature, the State Legislature
is also competent to enact laws in respect of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List, subject to the provisions
of Article 246(1). [Para 37, 38] [1117-E-G]
3.1 The relevant entries in the instant matter are, Entry
77 of the Union List, Entries 18 and 65 of the State List and
Entry 46 of the Concurrent List. Entry 18 of the State List
enables the State Legislature to enact law with respect to land,
including rights in and over land, land tenures including relation
of landlord and tenant and the collection of rent. The State
Legislature being clothed with power to enact law in respect of
land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant and
the collection of rent, it had legislative competence to enact the
Rent Control Act, in so far as the same regulates the relationship
of landlord and tenant and the collection of rent. [Para 39, 42]
[1117-H; 1118-A-H; 1119-A]
3.2 Entry 18 of the State List, which only enables the State
Legislature to legislate with regard to land, land tenures,
landlord tenant relationship, collection of rents etc. does not
enable the State Legislature to enact law conferring appellate
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1093
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in respect of orders passed
by an Appellate Rent Control Tribunal, constituted under a state
law. [Para 53] [1121-A-B]
3.3 In view of Entry 77 of the Union List, only Parliament
has the legislative competence to legislate with respect to the
constitution, organization, jurisdiction or powers of the Supreme
Court. Entry 64 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent
List enable the State Legislature to enact law with respect to
the jurisdiction and powers of Courts except the Supreme Court.
In other words, the said Entries expressly debar the State
Legislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court. [Para 54] [1121-B-C]
4.1 The Supreme Court has been established under Article
124 of the Constitution of India and derives its jurisdiction and
powers from Articles 131 to 145 thereof. There is no provision
in the Constitution which provides for direct appeal to the
Supreme Court, from an order of a Tribunal constituted under
any law enacted by a State Legislature. [Para 40] [1118-E]
4.2 Article 262(2) of the Constitution which enables
Parliament to enact law abrogating the power of the Supreme
Court to adjudicate the disputes referred to in Article 262(1),
and Article 348 of the Constitution, demonstrate that all matters
pertaining to the Supreme Court are exclusively within the
legislative domain of Union Parliament. [Para 41] [1118-F-G]
5.1 Article 323B (3)(d) provides that a law made under
Article 323B (1) may exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with
respect to all or any of the matters falling within the jurisdiction
of the said tribunals. Article 323B does not enable a State
Legislature to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by
enacting a provision for further statutory appeal to the Supreme
Court from an order of an Appellate Tribunal. [Para 55] [1121D]
5.2 On a conjoint reading of Article 323B and Articles 245
and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule,
there can be no doubt that the State Legislature was competent
to enact law to provide for adjudication and trial of all disputes,
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
complaints and offences relating to tenancy and rent, by a
Tribunal. The Chhattisgarh State Legislature was thus competent
to enact the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for
the adjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent
by the Rent Controller, and creates a Tribunal to decide appeals
from orders of the Rent Controller. [Para 46, 47] [1119-F-G]
6. When the question of vires of any enactment is
considered, it is to be seen, whether looking at the legislation
as a whole, it can be said to be a legislation, substantially with
respect to any of the matters, with regard to which the
Legislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Article
of the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List in
the Seventh Schedule thereto. Once it is held that it is so, the
legislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to all
ancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to be
comprehended in that arena. [Para 48] [1119-H; 1120-A-B]
United Provinces v. Atika Begum AIR 1941 FC 16 (25)
- referred to.
7.1 Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, providing for
direct appeal to the Supreme Court from orders passed by the
Rent Control Tribunal, is not ancillary or incidental to the power
of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact a Rent Control
Act, which provides for appellate adjudication of appeals relating
to tenancy and rent by a Tribunal. In enacting Section 13(2) of
the Rent Control Act, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature has
overtly transgressed the limits of its legislative power. [Para 49]
[1120-C]
7.2 While the widest amplitude should be given to the
language used in one entry, every attempt has to be made to
harmonize its contents with those of other Entries, so that the
latter may not be rendered nugatory. Both the Union legislature
and the State Legislature derive their power to legislate from
Article 245 of the Constitution of India. It is axiomatic that the
legislature of a State may only make laws for the whole or any
part of the State, while Parliament may make laws for the whole
or any part of the territory of India. There is no provision in the
Constitution which saves State laws with extra-territorial
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1095
operation, similar to Article 245(2) which expressly saves Union
laws with extra-territorial operation, enacted by Parliament. The
Chhattisgarh State Legislature, thus, patently lacks competence
to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh. [Para 50, 51] [1120-DF]
7.3 The submission that Section 13(2) of the Rent Control
Act does not confer on the Supreme Court, jurisdiction it did
not already possess, but is only incidental to and/or extension
of its power under Article 136, is not sustainable in law. [Para
56] [1121-E]
8.1 Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court does not act as a regular court of appeal. The power of
the Supreme Court under Article 136 is not to be confused with
the appellate power ordinarily exercised by Appellate Courts and
Tribunals under specific statutes. Article 136 does not confer a
right of appeal on any party, but confers a discretionary power
on the Supreme Court to interfere in appropriate cases. This
power can be exercised in spite of other provisions for appeal
contained in the Constitution, or any other law. Conclusiveness
or finality given by a statute to decision of a Court or Tribunal,
cannot deter the Supreme Court from exercising this jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Appellate jurisdiction is
not exercised when a statute gives finality to a decision of the
Court or Tribunal. [Para 57-59] [1121-F-H; 1122-A-B]
N. Natarajan v. B. K. Subba Rao (2003) 2 SCC 76 ;
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65 - referred
to.
8.2 Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the
Supreme Court entertains appeals by special leave, where
substantial questions of law or questions of public importance
are involved. Where there is any uncertainty in the law, the
Supreme Court, in its discretion, settles the law. The Supreme
Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of
fact under Article 136. If the concurrent findings are based on
accepted oral or documentary evidence, there is no interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 60] [1122-C]
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
8.3 While exercising power under Article 136 of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate
evidence which has been appreciated by the Trial Court and the
High Courts, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. It is only
where the High Court has completely missed the real point
requiring adjudication or has missed or ignored the relevant
material, would the Supreme Court be justified in getting into
evidence for the purpose of preventing grave injustice to a party.
[Para 61] [1122-D-E]
8.4 An appeal, on the other hand, is a continuation of the
original proceedings. Where there is a statutory appeal from an
appellate order of the Tribunal, the appellate court is obliged to
rehear the case, re-appreciate and re-analyze the evidence on
record, adjudicate the correctness of the order impugned and
correct errors both of fact and of law, that the Tribunal may have
made. [Para 62] [1122-F]
9.1 Article 200 of the Constitution relating to the passage
of Bills except money Bills, requires Bills passed by the
Legislative Assembly of a State, or in case of a State having a
Legislative Council, a bill passed by both the houses of the
Legislature of the State, to be presented to the Governor for
assent. Such Bills become law on receipt of assent of the
Governor. [Para 63] [1122-G]
9.2 The second proviso to Article 200, of the Constitution
prohibits the Governor from assenting to a Bill, which in the
opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from
the powers of the High Court, as to endanger the position which
the High Court is, by the Constitution of India, design to fill.
The Governor is obliged to reserve such bill for the
consideration of the President. Presidential assent is imperative
in the case of law enacted by a State Legislature, which would
derogate from the powers of the High Court, as to endanger the
position which that Court is, by the Constitution, designed to
fill. [Para 68, 65] [1123-B-F]
9.3 The second proviso to Article 200 is not attracted in
the case of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, since it does
not derogate from any power of the High Court. It is well settled
that there is no inherent right of appeal. Right of appeal is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
conferred by Statute. A Statute is not invalid only because it has
no provision of appeal to the High Court. [Para 69] [1123-G-H]
10.1 The amplitude of power conferred by Clauses 1 and
2 of Article 246, makes the Parliament competent to make a law
enlarging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in List I and III, even though
such enlargement may not be contemplated by the various
Articles of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution. By virtue
of the power conferred by Article 248 of the Constitution of
India, the Parliament has, subject to Article 246 A of the
Constitution, exclusive power to make any law with respect to
any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List.
The residuary power of legislation thus rests with Parliament.
[Para 71, 72] [1124-B-C]
10.2 In view of Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of
the Concurrent List, the State Legislature can enact law which
affects the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the Supreme Court.
In other words it can enact law which affects the jurisdiction of
the High Court, except under Articles 226 and 227, but it cannot
enact law which touches the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Rent Control Tribunal having been established under Article
323B of the Constitution, the diminution, if any, of the
jurisdiction of the High Court, except under Article 226 and 227,
would be saved by Article 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, but
not the provision for statutory appeal to the Supreme Court.
[Para 73] [1124-D-F]
10.3 The submission that Article 138(1) and/or Entry 77
of the Union List only takes within its ambit, the Original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and not its appellate
jurisdiction, is fallacious and without basis. There is no reason
to restrict the scope of Article 138(1) or of Entry 77 of the Union
List in the Schedule to the Constitution artificially. Entry 77 of
the Union List, going by its plain meaning, as also Article 138(1)
should include both Original and appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. [Para 74] [1124-F-G]
11.1 The submission that when a State Law gets the
assent of the President of India, that law prevails in the States,
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
notwithstanding repugnancy with an earlier Union law, is
unexceptionable. However, Presidential assent makes no
difference in case of legislative incompetence. Presidential
assent cannot and does not validate an enactment in excess of
the legislative powers of the State Legislature, nor validate a
statutory provision, which would render express provisions of
the Constitution otiose. Presidential assent cures repugnancy
with an earlier Central Statute, provided the State Legislature
is otherwise competent to enact the Statute. [Para 75, 76] [1124H; 1125-A-B]
11.2 In view of the finding that Presidential assent would
not validate a statutory provision which the legislature was
incompetent to enact, there is no need to go into the question
of whether the President had occasion to consider the
repugnancy of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act with the
provisions of the Constitution, including in particular, Entry 65
of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, which
expressly exclude from the State Legislature, the competence
and/or power to enact law affecting the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. [Para 77] [1125-C]
12. Section 13(2) of the Rent Act purports to confer a right
of statutory Second Appeal to the Supreme Court. Even in case
of concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent Control
Tribunal, where no serious question of law were involved, an
appeal would have to be entertained and decided. Such a
provision which mandates the Supreme Court to consider an
appeal is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the State
Legislature. Article 200 does not and cannot validate an ultra
vires enactment, which the concerned Legislature lacked
competence to enact. [Para 79] [1125-E-F]
13.1 Article 138 (2) of the Constitution provides that the
Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers
with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the
Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if
Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction
and powers by the Supreme Court. A special agreement, means,
an independent agreement arrived at between the Government
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
of India and the Government of a State through deliberations and
negotiations and not just an approval of legislation by the
President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In
any case, the Supreme Court may exercise further jurisdiction
pursuant to a special agreement between the Government of
India and the State Government on any particular issue, provided
Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction
and powers by the Supreme Court. Parliament has not enacted
any such law enabling the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction
in respect of a subject matter agreed upon between the
Government of India and the State Government. Article 138(2)
is not attracted. [Para 80, 82, 83] [1125-G-H; 1126-B-D]
13.2 It cannot be said that reservation of a Bill for
Presidential assent and consequential grant of Presidential
assent, tantamounts to special agreement between the
Government of India and the State Government, because the
President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
[Para 81] [1126-B-C]
14. The power of superintendence conferred by Article
227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law
that this power of judicial superintendence must be exercised
sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the
limits of their authority. When a Tribunal has acted within its
jurisdiction, the High Court does not interfere in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage
of justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction under Article
227 cannot be exercised "in the cloak of an appeal in disguise".
In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/
or judicial review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent
error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity;
arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles of
natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The
High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/
or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exercise
its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal
would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The
writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other
provision of appeal in the eye of law. [Para 86, 87] [1126-G-H;
1127-A-C]
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others AIR
1997 SC 1125 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 - followed.
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr AIR 1974
SC 2192 ; Puthiyadath Jayamathy Avva and Ors. v.
K.J. Naga Kumar and Ors. AIR 2001 Ker 38 ; K.K.
Poonacha v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2010) 9
SCC 671 : [2010] 10 SCR 1022 ; United Provinces
v. Atika Begum AIR 1941 FC 16 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1974 SC 2192
referred to
Para 19
AIR 2001 Ker 38
referred to
Para 22
[2010] 10 SCR 1022
referred to
Para 32
AIR 1941 FC 16
referred to
Para 48
[2002] 4 Suppl.
referred to
Para 58
SCR 428
[1955] SCR 941
referred to
Para 59
[1997] 2 SCR 1186
followed
Para 66, 67, 85, 88
(2019) 10 SCC 265
relied on
Para 84, 85
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3613
of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the Rent
Control Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Regional Bench at Raipur in Appeal No.
25 A of 2015
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10214 of 2016, 3051 of 2017.
K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General, Sameer Shrivastava, Kunal
Verma, Vikrant Singh Bais, Shriram P. Pingle, Sumeer Sodhi, Ashish
Tiwari, Kaustubh Shukla, Abhay Singh, Purshotham Reddy, Kunal
Verma, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1101
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal, purportedly under Section 13(2) of the
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the
"Rent Control Act", is against an order dated 1.12.2015 of the Rent
Control Tribunal at Raipur, confirming an order dated 14.09.2015 passed
by the Rent Control Authority, whereby an application filed by the
respondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section
12 of the Rent Control Act has been allowed.
2. Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
this Act, a landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any order
of the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal in
the prescribed manner within the prescribed time to the
Rent Control Tribunal.
(2) Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal
shall lie with the Supreme Court.
3. By an order dated 18.4.2016, a Bench of this Court expressed
serious doubts about the maintainability of the appeal, observing that
the State of Chhattishgarh prima facie lacked legislative competence
to enact law providing for statutory appeals directly to the Supreme
Court, from the orders of a Tribunal. Notice was, accordingly, directed
to be issued to the Attorney General for India and the Advocate General
for the State of Chhattisgarh.
4. On 19.4.2017, another Bench of this Court heard amongst
others, the Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh. The
Advocate General, inter alia, argued that the Rent Control Act having
received the assent of the President of India, Section 13(2) thereof was
protected by Article 138(2) read with Article 200 of the Constitution of
India and was valid and enforceable.
5. After hearing Counsel and the learned Advocate General for
the State of Chhattisgarh, the Bench was of the view that the appeal
involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution, and accordingly referred the appeal to the Chief Justice
of India, for assignment to a Constitution Bench of this Court, in terms
of Article 145(3) of the Constitution. The Chief Justice has referred
the appeal to this Bench.
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
6. The question which requires to be determined by this Bench
is, whether Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act is ultra vires the
Constitution of India, by reason of lack of legislative competence of
the Chhattisgarh State legislature to enact the provision.
7. Before dealing with the arguments advanced before this
Bench, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India are set out
hereinbelow for convenience:-
"124. Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court
(1)There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a
Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes
a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges
.......
xxx
xxx
xxx
130. Seat of Supreme Court. - The Supreme Court shall sit
in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice
of India may, with the approval of the President, from time
to time, appoint.
131: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme
Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have
original jurisdiction in any dispute -
(a) between the Government of India and one or more
States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or
States on one side and one or more other States on
the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the
dispute involves any question (whether of law or
fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right
depends:
Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a
dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant,
engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which, having
been entered into or executed before the commencement of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1103
this Constitution, continues in operation after such
commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction
shall not extend to such a dispute.
132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from
High Courts in certain cases.-
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in
the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or
other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under
article 134A that the case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution.
(2) ....... omitted w.e.f. 1.8.1979
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the
case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground
that any such question as aforesaid has been
wrongly decided. Explanation.- For the purpose of
this article, the expression "final order" includes an
order deciding an issue which, if decided in favour
of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final
disposal of the case.
133: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from
High Courts in regard to civil matters.-
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a
High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies
under under Article 134A
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law
of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said
question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party
appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge
as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution
has been wrongly decided.
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall,
unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the
Supreme Court from the judgement, decree or final order of
one Judge of a High Court.
134: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to
criminal matters.-
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding
of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court -
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an
accused person and sentenced him to death; or (b) has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted
the accused person and sentenced him to death; or (c)
certifies under article 134A that the case is a fit one for
appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject
to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under
clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High
Court may establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any
further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any
judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding
of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such
conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.
134A: Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.-
Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree,
final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article
132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article
134. -
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of
the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making
of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence,
determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making,
the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1105
in clause (1) of article 132, or clause (1) of article 133 or,
as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article
134, may be given in respect of that case.
135: Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court under
existing law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court.-
Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme
Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect
to any matter to which the provisions of article 133 or article
134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to
that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately
before the commencement of this Constitution under any
existing law.
136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the
Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in
the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any
law relating to the Armed Forces.
137: Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme
Court.-
Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or
any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall
have power to review any judgment pronounced or order
made by it.
138: Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court.-
(1) The Supreme Court shall have such further
jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the
matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law
confer.
RAJENDRA DIWAN v. PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have such further
jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter
as the Government of India and the Government of
any State may by special agreement confer, if
Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such
jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.
139: Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue
certain writs.-
Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court power
to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for any purposes
other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32.
139A: Transfer of certain cases.-
(1) Where cases involving the same or substantially the same
questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court and
one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts
and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or on
an application made by the Attorney-General of India or by
a party to any such case that such questions are substantial
questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may
withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court
or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the
said questions of law return any case so withdrawn together
with a copy of its judgment on such questions to the High
Court from which the case has been withdrawn, and the High
Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case
in conformity with such judgment.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do
for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other
proceedings pending before any High Court to any other
High Court.
140: Ancillary powers of Supreme Court.-
Parliament may by law make provision for conferring upon
the Supreme Court such supplemental powers not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution
as may appear to be necessary or desirable for the purpose
of enabling the court more effectively to exercise the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Constitution.
141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all
courts.-
The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on
all courts within the territory of India.
142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court
and orders as to discovery, etc.-
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
may pass such decree or make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause
or matter pending before it, and any decree so
passed or order so made shall be enforceable
throughout the territory of India in such manner as
may be prescribed by or under any law made by
Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so
made, in such manner as the President may by order
prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this
behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as
respects the whole of the territory of India, have all
and every power to make any order for the purpose
of securing the attendance of any person, the
discovery or production of any documents, or the
investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
143: Power of President to consult Supreme Court.-
(1) If at any time it appears to the President that a
question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to
arise, which is of such a nature and of such public
importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion
of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the
question to that Court for consideration and the
Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report
to the President its opinion thereon.
RAJENDRA DIWAN v.