Can't Interfere With Tenancy Proceedings Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction When Statutory Remedy Available: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with pending tenancy proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that its supervisory jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked where an effective alternative remedy exists. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143]It further held that questions requiring factual adjudication, such as whether the relationship between landlord and tenant existed before the repeal of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, must be decided by the competent Tenancy Tribunal and not in proceedings under Article 227.Accordingly, the Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a third party challenging the very numbering of a tenancy case under the repealed Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:"The Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint, even though a specific provision for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was available to the parties to be taken recourse to. In the grab of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and thus, become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the case may be. It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law, especially where remedy available in the CPC for 11 the cases falling under category/other law also, where such specific statutory remedy is available.” The petitioner, a third party claiming rights over the disputed agricultural land, challenged the maintainability of tenancy proceedings instituted by a tenant before the the Tenancy Tribunal seeking a declaration that he was the cultivating tenant and a permanent injunction against the landlord. An interim injunction had also been granted in the tenant's favour.The petitioner contended that since the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 had been repealed by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Repeal Act, 2022, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under the repealed enactment. He argued that the tenancy proceedings themselves were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondents opposed the revision, submitting that the petitioner was not even a party to the tenancy proceedings and therefore lacked locus to invoke Article 227. They argued that if he claimed any independent right over the property, he should first seek impleadment before the Tribunal and thereafter avail the remedies provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, including filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, instead of directly approaching the High Court.Accepting the respondents' submissions, the Court reiterated that Article 227 jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily cannot be invoked where an effective alternative remedy exists. The Court further observed that although the Tenancy Act stood repealed, the repeal clause preserved the previous operation of the Act and actions already taken under it. It noted that deciding whether the tenancy relationship arose before or after the repeal required examination of disputed facts, including the nature and commencement of the lease, which could only be adjudicated by the Tenancy Tribunal. Such factual issues could not be examined in proceedings under Article 227.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the civil revision petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Tribunal in accordance with law. It also clarified that the Tribunal should decide any such applications independently, without being influenced by the observations made in the High Court's order.Case Title: Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr.Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2001 of 2024Counsel for the Petitioner: Akula Vamsi KrishnaCounsel for the Respondents: Sai Gangadhar Chamarty; T. Raghu PrasadClick Here To Read/Download OrderCitation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143

Can't Interfere With Tenancy Proceedings Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction When Statutory Remedy Available: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

Can't Interfere With Tenancy Proceedings Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction When Statutory Remedy Available: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers