H. S. YADAVversusSHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH

                           [2019] 13 S.C.R. 733                             733


                             H. S. YADAV                                    A
                                   v.
                  SHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2019)
                                                                            B
                         OCTOBER 15, 2019
           [DEEPAK GUPTA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
       Constitution of India– Arts.323B, 246, 227 and Seventh
Schedule, List I (Entry 77), List II (Entry 65) & List III ( Entry 46)
– State of Chhattisgarh enacted the 2011 Rent Control Act – Under           C
the Act, in the hierarchy of adjudicating authorities there is a Rent
Controller and above that, Rent Control Tribunal – Under s.13,
from any order of the Rent Controller, an appeal lies to the Rent
Control Tribunal and in terms of s.13(2), an appeal lies as a matter
of right to the Supreme Court – Issue as to whether the State               D
Legislature can enact law providing an appeal directly to the
Supreme Court of India – Held: Tribunal has been constituted in
exercise of the powers vested in the State Legislature u/Art.323B
which deals with tribunal for other matters – Sub-cl.(h) of Clause
(2) thereof empowers the appropriate legislature to constitute
tribunal to deal with the issues relating to rent and its regulations       E
– Thus, it is not disputed that the State has the power to constitute
the Tribunal – Art.246 specifically provides that Parliament has
exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters enumerated
in List I (Union List) – State has exclusive powers to make laws in
respect of matters falling in List II (State List)– In respect of matters   F
in the List III (Concurrent List), both the Union and the State have
the power to enact laws but, if the field is occupied by any law
enacted by the Parliament then the State cannot legislate on the
same issue – Entry 77 of List I gives power to the Union in respect
of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court – This power
cannot be exercised by the State Legislature – Further, Entry 65            G
of List II indicates that the State Legislature has no power to enact
any legislation relating to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme
Court – This power is specifically excluded – Even, Entry 46 of
List III makes it clear that as far as the jurisdictional powers of
the Supreme Court are concerned, they cannot be exercised under
                                                                            H
                                  733
734            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     the Concurrent List – Therefore, the powers with regard to
      jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court vest with the Union
      and Parliament alone can enact legislation in this regard – s.13(2)
      of the 2011 Act, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the
      Supreme Court, is ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope
      of the powers of the State Legislature and is accordingly, struck
B
      down – No reason why the supervisory jurisdiction of the High
      Court should be excluded – Open to the appellant to approach
      the High Court for redressal of his grievance u/Art.227, on which
      the High Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with
      law – Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – ss. 6, 7, 13.
C           Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – s.13(2) – Held:
      s.13(2), in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme
      Court, is ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the
      powers of the State Legislature and is accordingly, struck down.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
             HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal has been constituted in exercise
      of the powers vested in the State Legislature under Article 323B
      of the Constitution of India which deals with tribunal for other
      matters. Sub-clause (h) of Clause (2) of the said Article
      empowers the appropriate legislature to constitute a tribunal to
E     deal with the issues relating to rent and its regulations. It is not
      disputed that the State has the power to constitute the Tribunal.
      Article 246 of the Constitution specifically provides that
      Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of
      matters enumerated in List I (Union List) of the Seventh
F     Schedule. Likewise, the State has exclusive powers to make laws
      in respect of matters falling in List II (State List) of the Seventh
      Schedule. In the Concurrent List, i.e. List III , both the Union
      and the State have the power to enact laws but if the field is
      occupied by any law enacted by Parliament then the State cannot
      legislate on the same issue. Entry 77 gives power to the Union
G     in respect of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court.
      This power cannot be exercised by the State Legislature. [Paras
      7-10] [738-E-F; 739-A-D]
            1.2 Entry 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly
      indicates that the State Legislature has no power to enact any
H     legislation relating to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme
        H. S. YADAV v. SHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH                           735


Court. This power is specifically excluded. Even Entry 46 of List       A
III of the Seventh Schedule makes it clear that as far as the
jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court are concerned, they
cannot be exercised under the Concurrent List. Therefore,
the powers with regard to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme
Court vest with the Union and Parliament alone can enact a
                                                                        B
legislation in this regard. The power of the Supreme Court
under Article 136 is always there. However, the State cannot
enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme
Court. That would amount to entrenching upon the jurisdiction
of the Union, which the State Legislature does not have. The
men who drafted the Act did not even consider the hierarchy of          C
Courts. The Rent Control Tribunal is headed by a retired Judge
of the High Court or District Judge in the Super Time Scale or
above. What was the rationale of making such an order
appealable directly to the Supreme Court? No reason why the
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court should be excluded.
                                                                        D
Section 13(2) of the Act, in so far as it provides an appeal directly
to the Supreme Court, is totally illegal, ultra vires the
Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State
Legislature. Section 13(2) of the Act is accordingly struck down.
In L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India, Supreme Court clearly held
that tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the          E
Constitution are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High
Courts. In view of the law laid down in L. Chandrakumar’s case,
the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders of the Rent
Control Tribunal. An appeal under Section 13 (2) of the Act
                                                                        F
directly to the Supreme Court is not maintainable. However, it
is left open to the appellant to approach the High Court for
redressal of his grievance under Article 227 of the Constitution.
If the appellant does so, the High Court shall decide the matter
strictly in accordance with law. [Paras 11-14, 15-17] [739-F-H;
740-A-G]                                                                G
      L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC
      119 – followed.
                       Case Law Reference
(1993) 4 SCC 119                  followed             Para 16          H
736            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5153
      of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2019 of the Rent
      Control Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Appeal No. Nil of 2018.
           Ravi Bharuka, Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree Singh, Justine
B     George, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Bharat Bhushan, Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Tankha, Ashish Tiwari,
      Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C           DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
             1. “Whether the State Legislature can enact a law providing an
      appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India?” is the question arising
      in this appeal.

D            2. The State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Rent
      Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Under this Act,
      in the hierarchy of adjudicating authorities there is a Rent Controller
      and above that, a Rent Control Tribunal. In terms of Section 7 of the
      Act the State can appoint one or more officers not below the rank of
      Deputy Collector, as Rent Controller with territorial jurisdiction to be
E     specified by the Collector. The Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter
      referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) is constituted under Section 6 of the Act.
      This Tribunal has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction. Section 6 of
      the Act reads as under:-
            “6. Constitution of the Rent Control Tribunal.–
F
                (1) The State Government shall by notification constitute,
                    within thirty days of this Act, a Tribunal in terms of
                    Article 323-B of the Constitution, to be called as
                    Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, to give effect to the
                    provisions of this Act, and for the adjudication or trial of
G                   any disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to rent,
                    its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the
                    rights, title and obligations of landlords and tenants.
            Explanation.- Matters relating to transfer of property and/or
            disputes regarding title over any property shall continue to be
H           considered under relevant laws by the courts of law.
        H. S. YADAV v. SHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH                              737
                   [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

          (2) The State Government in consultation with the High           A
              Court shall appoint the Chairman of the Rent Control
              Tribunal, a retired Judge of the High Court or serving
              or retired District Judge not below the rank of Super
              Time Scale.
          (3) The Tribunal shall have such members with such               B
              qualification, as the State Government may prescribe.
          (4) The State Government shall appoint an officer as the
              Registrar of the Tribunal, who shall not be below the
              cadre of Civil Judge Class-I or the rank of Deputy
              Secretary to the State Government.                           C
          (5) From the date, the Tribunal becomes functional, which
              date shall be published in the State Gazette, the
              jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the
              Supreme Court under Article 136 and High Court under
              Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, shall stand        D
              excluded in respect of all matters falling within the
              jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
      Provided, however, that all cases pending before any court or
      authority immediately before the establishment of the Tribunal,
      shall continue to be processed under the old Act, as amended         E
      from time to time.
          (6) The Tribunal shall have its headquarters at Raipur and
              the State Government may, by notification, fix such other
              places for hearing of matters by the Tribunal, as it deems
              fit.                                                         F
          (7) The terms and conditions of the service of the Chairman
              and members of the Tribunal shall be such as may be
              prescribed by the State Government.”
       3. Section 13 of the Act provides for an appeal against orders
of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal. It reads thus:-                   G
      “13. Appeal.-(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.                                                            H
738            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           (2) Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal shall
            lie with the Supreme Court.”
             4. A bare perusal of Section 13 shows that from any order of
      the Rent Controller an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal and in
      terms of Section 13(2), an appeal lies as a matter of right to the Supreme
B     Court.
            5. When the present appeal, filed under Section 13(2) of the Act,
      came up for admission, while issuing notice we had also ordered as
      follows:-
            “xxx                      xxx                        xxx
C
            Notice be given to the learned Advocate General of the State of
            Chhattisgarh and the learned Attorney General for India as to
            whether the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the
            Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 providing for an appeal to
            the Supreme Court of India against the order of the Rent Control
D           Tribunal, Chhattisgarh would be within the legislative competence
            of the State Legislature.
            xxx                       xxx                       xxx”
            6. Pursuant to the notice, learned Attorney General has appeared
E     and assisted the Court.
             7. At the outset, we would like to point out that the Tribunal has
      been constituted in exercise of the powers vested in the State
      Legislature under Article 323B of the Constitution of India which deals
      with tribunal for other matters. Sub-clause (h) of Clause (2) of the said
F     Article which empowers the appropriate legislature to constitute a
      tribunal to deal with the issues relating to rent and its regulations read
      as follows:-
            “323B. Tribunals for other matters.-
             (1) xxx                  xxx                       xxx
G
             (2) The matters referred to in clause (1) are the following,
                 namely:-
                   xxx                xxx                       xxx
             (h) rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including
H                the rights, title and interest of landlords and tenants;”
         H. S. YADAV v. SHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH                               739
                    [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

       8. It is not disputed before us that the State has the power to       A
constitute the Tribunal. The only issue is whether in terms of Section
13(2) of the Act, the State Legislature could provide an appeal as a
matter of right from the order of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court.
        9. Article 246 of the Constitution specifically provides that
Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters           B
enumerated in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule. Likewise,
the State has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters falling
in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. As far as the Concurrent
List, i.e. List III is concerned, both the Union and the State have the
power to enact laws but if the field is occupied by any law enacted by
                                                                             C
Parliament then the State cannot legislate on the same issue.
      10. Entry 77 of List I of the Seventh Schedule reads as under:-
      “77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the
      Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), and the fees
      taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the Supreme         D
      Court.”
      Entry 77 gives power to the Union in respect of jurisdiction and
the powers of the Supreme Court. This power cannot be exercised by
the State Legislature.
      11. It would also be apposite to refer to Entry 65 of List II of       E
the Seventh Schedule, which reads as follows:-
      “65. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme
      Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List.”
      A bare reading of Entry 65 clearly indicates that the State            F
Legislature has no power to enact any legislation relating to jurisdiction
and power of the Supreme Court. This power is specifically excluded.
      12. Entry 46 of List III of the Seventh Schedule is also relevant.
This reads as follows:-
      “46. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme         G
      Court, with respect to any of the matters in this list.”
       Even Entry 46 makes it clear that as far as the jurisdictional
powers of the Supreme Court are concerned, they cannot be exercised
under the Concurrent List. Therefore, the powers with regard to
jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court vest with the Union and          H
740               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     Parliament alone can enact a legislation in this regard. The power of
      the Supreme Court under Article 136 is always there. However, the
      State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the
      Supreme Court. That would amount to entrenching upon the jurisdiction
      of the Union, which the State Legislature does not have.
B           13. We are constrained to observe that the men who drafted the
      Act did not even consider the hierarchy of Courts. As pointed above,
      the Rent Control Tribunal is headed by a retired Judge of the High Court
      or District Judge in the Super Time Scale or above. What was the
      rationale of making such an order appealable directly to the Supreme
      Court? We see no reason why the supervisory jurisdiction of the High
C     Court should be excluded.
             14. We, therefore, have no doubt in our mind that Section 13(2)
      of the Act, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme
      Court, is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope
      of the powers of the State Legislature. Section 13(2) of the Act is
D     accordingly struck down.
             15. While dealing with the issue, we may make reference to the
      fact that the Rent Control Tribunal is a tribunal constituted under Article
      323B of the Constitution.

E            16. In L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India1, this Court clearly
      held that tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the
      Constitution are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. In
      view of the law laid down in L. Chandrakumar’s case (supra), the
      High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
      of the Constitution against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal.
F
            17. In view of the above, we hold that an appeal under Section
      13 (2) of the Act directly to the Supreme Court is not maintainable.
      We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. However, we leave it open to the
      appellant to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance
      under Article 227 of the Constitution. If the appellant does so, the High
G     Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. Pending
      application(s) if any, stand(s) disposed of.


      Divya Pandey                                                Appeal dismissed.

      1
H         (1993) 4 SCC 119