SC Reiterates That Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts

WHAT WAS THE MATTER

• The case Shubas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam was a case if dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding demolition of a wall without causing harm to the remaining property.
• The Bombay Municipal Corporation passed an order to vacate the building due to its dilapidated condition, after its technical committee scrutinized two conflicting reports regarding the condition of the building.
• The respondent in the present case, who was a tenant in the building went to the High Court.
• The High Court, under its writ jurisdiction, passed an order in favour of the plaintiff, allowing them to carry out construction works at their own risk, without damaging the building.
• The landlord made an appeal to the Supreme Court, alleging that the order of the High Court ignored the report of the Technical Advisory Committee stating that the building was in a critical condition and therefore, must be vacated.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

• The Court held that the decision of the High Court was erroneous as it had no authority under its writ jurisdiction to decide between two conflicting reports and accept one of them.
• The Court stated that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court “does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts.”
• The Court asserted that the High Court had made an error in applying the law as well, in the sense that it considered the report of a construction company as a certificate of stability of the building.