Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr.

Introduction 

This appeal challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which provided for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from Rent Control Tribunal orders. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench to determine whether the State Legislature possessed legislative competence to enact such provision. The case arose from an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Authority and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. 

Facts In Brief 

• Respondent-landlord filed eviction application against appellant-tenant under Section 12 of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 
• Rent Control Authority, Raipur allowed eviction application vide order dated 14.09.2015 
• Appellant-tenant preferred appeal before Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur which was dismissed vide order dated 1.12.2015 
• Appellant filed direct appeal to Supreme Court under Section 13(2) of Rent Control Act against Tribunal's order 
• Supreme Court Bench vide order dated 18.4.2016 expressed serious doubts about maintainability of appeal and issued notice to Attorney General and Advocate General of Chhattisgarh 
• Matter heard on 19.4.2017 where Advocate General argued that Act having received Presidential assent, Section 13(2) was protected by Article 138(2) read with Article 200 
• Supreme Court found substantial constitutional question involved and referred matter to Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) 
• The Rent Control Act was originally reserved by Governor under second proviso to Article 200 and subsequently received Presidential assent under Article 201 
• Three appeals were clubbed together: CA No. 3613/2016, CA No. 10214/2016, and CA No. 3051/2017 

Court Observations 

Legislative Competence Analysis: 

• Entry 77 of Union List confers exclusive power to Parliament to legislate regarding constitution, organization, jurisdiction and powers of Supreme Court 
• Entry 65 of State List and Entry 46 of Concurrent List enable State Legislature to legislate regarding jurisdiction of all courts except Supreme Court 
• State Legislature was competent to enact Rent Control Act under Entry 18 of State List (landlord-tenant relations) but lacked competence to confer appellate jurisdiction on Supreme Court 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 136 confers discretionary power on Supreme Court for special leave appeals, not statutory right of appeal 
• Article 138(2) requires special agreement between Centre and State plus Parliamentary legislation for conferring additional jurisdiction on Supreme Court 
• Presidential assent under Article 200/201 cannot validate legislation beyond legislative competence of State 

Distinction Between Article 136 and Statutory Appeal: 

• Article 136 is discretionary supervisory jurisdiction exercised sparingly 
• Statutory appeal under Section 13(2) would create mandatory obligation on Supreme Court to hear all appeals 
• High Court retains writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 as basic feature of Constitution 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void. The Court observed  that State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact provision conferring direct appellate jurisdiction on Supreme Court from Tribunal orders. Presidential assent cannot cure legislative incompetence or validate enactment beyond constitutional limits of State Legislature's powers.