Holding

A Full Bench cannot decide the merits of a revision petition when only a question of law is referred; it must answer the question and remit the matter to the Division Bench.

Summary

The Kerala High Court Division Bench referred a question of law to its Full Bench concerning the applicability of Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to legal heirs of a deceased tenant. The Full Bench answered the question but then proceeded to decide the civil revision petition on its merits, dismissing it and ordering possession to be surrendered. The appellant challenged this, arguing that a Full Bench, when only a legal question is referred, lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the revision petition and must remit the matter back to the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decisions in Keshav Nath Khurana v. Union of India and Kerala State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal Co., held that the Full Bench erred in deciding the revision petition and should have only answered the reference and remitted the case. Consequently, the order of the Full Bench disposing of the revision petition was set aside, the revision petition revived, and directed to be heard by a Division Bench. The Court dismissed one appeal as infructuous and allowed the other in part, restoring the proper procedural route.

Issues considered

Whether a Full Bench of a High Court has jurisdiction to decide a civil revision petition on merits when only a specific question of law is referred to it.
Whether the Full Bench must remit the case to the Division Bench after answering the referred question.
Whether the order of the Full Bench disposing of the revision petition is void.

Subjects

jurisdictionfull benchreference of question of lawcivil revision petitionKerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Actprocedural lawappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 210

. ..
A T.A. HAMEED
v.
M. VISWANATHAN
(Civil Appeal No. 8422 of 2001)

FEBRUARY 21, 2008
B
(A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.)

HIGH COURT - Reference of a question of law to Full
Bench - Jurisdiction of - Full Bench answering the question
c and also deciding the revision itself on merits - Held: The
Full Bench had no jurisdiction to decide the revision petition
- The revision petition was not referred to the Full Bench for
decision - Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench,
it should have answered the question referred to it and remitted
the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the revision
D
petition on merits - The order of the Full Bench deciding the
civil revision petition on merits was not correct - The revision
petition shall stand revived and be placed for hearing before
a Division Bench, which shall dispose of the same in
accordance with law after hearing both the parties :... Practice
E and Procedure - Jurisdiction of Full Bench of High Court - In
the case of reference of a question of law to it- Kera/a Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act - s.11 (17). --
Kera/a State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal
Co. and others (2006) 6 SCC 258; and Kesha Nath Khurana I.
F
v. Union of India and Others 1981 (Supp.) SCC 38 - relied
on
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8422
of 2001.
G From the Judgment and final Order dated 8/8/2000 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 2006/1999.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1817 of 2004.
.,..
H 210
T.A. HAMEED v. M. VISWANATHAN 211

r·
./
Malini Poduval and Nishe Rajen Shonker (for M/s. T.T.K. A
Deepak & Co.) for the Appellant.
Subramonium Prasad and K. Rajeev for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
B
C.A. No. 8422/2001
.''
' 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel
/.
for the parties submit that the parties have compromised the
matter and, therefore, the present appeal has become
infructuous. c
2. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
No order as to costs.
~
C.A. No. 1817/2004
3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the D
~ >" judgment and order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Full Bench
· of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 234/1997 whereby the
learned Full Bench has ·answered the question referred to it by
the Division Bench and while answering the question referred
to it, the Full Bench itself decided the case on merits. The E
grievance of the appellant herein is that in view of the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Kesho Nath Khurana Vs.
Union of India and Others 1981 (Supp) SCC 38 and Kera/a
State Science & Technology Museum Vs. Rambal Co. and
..; Others (2006) 6 SCC 258, the Full Bench should not have gone F
on the merits of the matter and the Full Bench should have after
answering the reference remitted the matter back to the Division
Bench for deciding the Civil Revision Petition.
4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present
appeal are that a Reference was made by the Division Bench G
of the High Court of Kerala, which reads as under:-
"Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the
..... protection of Section 11 (17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act?"
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A 5. This Reference was answered by the Full Bench in para " '-

18 of the impugned order in the following words,
"the benefits under Section 11 (17) to the legal heirs/tenants
cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law."

B In para 19 of the impugned order the learned Full Bench
asked counsel for both the parties to advance arguments on
merits also as the proceedings were initiated about a decade ~

back and asked counsel for the parties for disposing of the ...
revision petition itself and accordingly arguments were heard
c on merits of the Revision Petition also and Revision Petition
was disposed! of by dismissing the same and directing the
appellant-tena1nt to surrender possession witbin six months and
directing the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking to that
effect.
D 6. Aggrieved against the said order dated 31.1.2003 of
the Full Bench, the present appeal by special leave has been _.,
filed before this Court. •

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The
principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is
E that the Full Bench should not have disposed of the revision
petition on merits. He further submitted that once the Court
directed the counsels for the parties to make submission on
merits, they had no option but to address the Court on merits of
the matter. Hei, however, submitted that in view of the law laid
F down by this Court in the cases of Kesha Nath (supra) and I-

Kera/a State Science (supra) the Full Bench should not have
decided the revision petition on merits and after answering the
reference made to it by the Division Bench, it should have
remitted the revision petition to the Division Bench for decision
G in accordance with law. The submission of learned counsel for
the appellant appears to be correct.
8. In the case of Kesha Nath (supra), in almost identical
situation, this Court has taken the view that when a reference is .. ~

made to a larger Bench, the larger Bench should answer the
H
r
TA HAMEED v. M. VISWANATHAN 213
,J •

reference and thereafter remit the case to the appropriate Bench A
for decision on merits. In that case also the learned Single Judge
had referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question
"whether the order dated January 21, 1963 made by the
Settlement commissioner was final and binding in the present
appeal, and if so, what is its effect upon the point in controversy B
f- in the present appeal?" The Division Bench by order dated April
7, 1980 disposed of the appeal on merits and dismissed it with
costs and held that the order dated January 21, 1963 made by
the Chief Settlement commissioner was not final and binding in
the civil proceedings and it did not exclude the jurisdiction of c
the civil court to decide whether there was any encroachment
by the respondent on the property conveyed to the appellant
under the sale certificate dated June 7, 1963 read with the
corrigendum dated September 22, 1964 issued by the District
~ ;r. Rent and Managing Officer, Simla, pursuant to the auction sale
D
held on September 25, 1955.
9. This Court held that it is obvious that since only the
aforesaid question of law was referred by the single Judge to
the Division Bench, the Division Bench should have sent the
matter back to the Single Judge after deciding the question of E
law referred to them. But instead the Division Bench proceeded
to dispose of the second appeal on merits and dismissed it
wi.th costs. This Court further observed that, "We think that the
~
Division Bench was in error in following this procedure. The
Division Bench ought to haVE? sent the appeal back to the single F
Judge with the answer rendered by them to the question referred
by the single Judge and left it to the single Judge to dispose of
the second appeal according to law."
10. Same view was reiterated by this Court in the case of
Kera/a State Science (supra). In that case this Court after G
referring to earlier decisions in para 8 held as under :-
r.,...
"It is fairly well settled that when reference is made on a
specific issue either by a learned Single Judge or Division
Bench to a larger Bench, i.e., Division Bench or Full Bench
H
214 SUPl~EME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A or Constitution Bench, as the case may be, the larger
bench cannot adjudicate upon an issu~ which is not the
question referred to."
11. In thei case at hand also, almost an identical situation
had taken place that a reference was made by the learned
B Division Bench of the Kera la High Court to the Full Bench and
the Full Bench after answering the reference went on to decide
the revision petition itself on merits, which the Full Bench had
no jurisdiction to do as the revision petition was not referred to
the Full Bench for decision. Since, only reference was made to
C the Full Bench, the Full Bench should have answered the
question referred to it and remitted the matter to the Division
Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits. Consequently,
we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003
whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed
D by the appellant herein. We make it clear that we are not
expressing any opinion with regard to the issue which was
referred by the Division Bench to the Full Bench. We are only
examining the matter whether the Full Bench could have
disposed of the revision petition itself or not. In these
E circumstances, we allow this appeal to the extent that the order
of the Full Bench deciding the civil revision petition filed by the
appellant herein was decided on merits by the Full Bench was
not correct. The revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand
revived and be' placed for hearing before a Division Bench,
F which shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after
hearing both thE~ parties. Since the matter is old' we request the
Division Bench to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously.
12. The· appeal is allowed to the extent indicted
hereinabove. No order as to costs.
G
R.P. Civil Appeal No. 8422 of 2001 dismissed as
infructuous & Civil Appeal No. 1817/2004 allowed.

H