Hotel Chithra PVT. LTD. vs. Sri Hotel Rajageetham

Facts

Hotel Chithra Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction to the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, to expedite the disposal of Execution Petition (E.P.) No. 108 of 2019, which arose from R.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008. The original R.C.O.P. was filed by the petitioner against Sri Hotel Rajageetham and its partners (Respondents) for eviction. The eviction order was granted by the Rent Controller but was challenged by the respondents in appeal. The petitioner initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 108 of 2019, seeking to recover arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 43,26,172/- and GST dues of Rs. 4,43,613/-. The petitioner's grievance was that the proceedings, initiated in 2008, were being deliberately delayed by the respondents, preventing the petitioner from regaining possession of the property for over 13 years.

Held

The Court held that the ends of justice would be met by directing the lower court to dispose of the Execution Petition (E.P.) No. 108 of 2019 within a stipulated time frame. The Court acknowledged the pendency of the E.P. since 2019 and the petitioner's grievance regarding the prolonged delay in the proceedings. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Court issued a specific direction to the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, to dispose of E.P. No. 108 of 2019 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, under Article 227 of the Constitution, can direct subordinate courts to expedite the disposal of pending cases to ensure timely justice, especially when significant delays are evident and no adverse order is being passed against the party not present.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the expeditious disposal of E.P. No. 108 of 2019 in R.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008, considering the prolonged delay in proceedings, as per the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents had been deliberately delaying the eviction proceedings since 2008, and despite the passage of 13 years, possession of the property had not been obtained. The petitioner highlighted the substantial arrears of rent and GST dues, emphasizing the financial prejudice caused by the delay. They prayed for a direction to the lower court to dispose of the execution petition within a stipulated timeframe. Respondents' Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondents as notice was dispensed with due to the nature of the petition (seeking early disposal) and the absence of an adverse order being passed against them.