Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: September 8, 2022 at 19:32 IST
The Supreme Court sent back a matter to the Himachal Pradesh High Court after finding the judgment under challenge incoherent.
A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli ordered to challenge the final order and directed the High Court to dispose of the case anew within three months.
From an aforesaid ruling of the High Court, the Supreme Court held,
“The above findings are incomprehensible. It is not reasonably possible to understand the reasons which weighed with the High Court in reversing the view of the first appellate authority in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.”
A plea was filed for an eviction on the basis of grounds of arrears and bonafide need to the Supreme Court.
The Rent Controller’s November 2013 Order partly allowed the petition on the basis of the first ground while holding that the latter was not established. This was challenged before an Additional District Judge, who, by a June 2014 order, allowed the appeal.
The tenant then moved the High Court, which, in 2019, reversed the district judge’s findings, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court observed that some parts of the judgment were incomprehensible and set aside the previous verdict for fresh consideration to the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
A portion of the Judgment was as follows:
“The afore purported bonafide requirements, of, the landlord, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, was endeavoured, to be stained, with a vice of maladies,
(i) on anvil of his concealing, and, suppressing the factum qua even apart, from, the afore premises, his, upon, the demise, of, the previous landlady, one, Parwati, rather holding derivative possession of three rooms, as stood occupied by the afore, during, her life time.
The afore contention, reared by the petitioner herein/tenant, in his reply, to the eviction petition, and, as borne, in paragraph No.12, of, the opposite reply,
- was neither 3 pointedly nor with apt aplomb, hence meted, a graphic denial,
- and, given no pointed graphic denial being meted by the landlord, vis-a-vis, the afore contention, reared in paragraph No.12, of the tenant’s reply, to the corresponding para, of, the eviction petition,
- obviously carries, the requisite squealing effects, qua the landlord acquiescing, qua his holding possession, of, the afore premises, and, when there is obviously no explanation emanating, from, the landlord, that, upon, combining the area of the afore premises, with the area of the premises, already in his possession,
- thereupon, too, he would face deficit or shortfall, in accommodation, for his meeting, the bonafide requirement, for housing himself, and, his family members.”
There were similar cases also observed before by the Top Court.
In April 2017, a Bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta had set aside a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court because of the complex use of English.
A Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra had in December 2018 taken to the fact that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had devoted 60 pages to write an order for remanding a matter to the first appellate court.
In January this year, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha directed a rewrite of the judgment as the language was indecipherable and commented, “Is this Latin”.
Furthermore, it was cited that incomprehensible orders do not ensure understandable justice to the citizens.