1

NAME OF THE COLLEGE - MIES R.M LAW COLLEGE

CANDIDATE’S NAME -

ROLL NUMBER -

SECTION -

REGISTRATION NUMBER -

CLINICAL PAPER - IV

PAPER - 6.5

SUBJECT - MOOT MEMORIAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF METROPOLIS, INDIA

RIYA

....................Appellant

-VERSUS-

CONTROLLER OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

....................Respondent

INDEX

SL NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS 5-9
3. ISSUES RAISED 10
4. A R G U M E N T S A D VA N C E D O N 11-22
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
5. PRAYER 23
6. A R G U M E N T A D VA N C E D O N 24-26
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7. PRAYER 27

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that Appellant has approached this Hon’ble High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution o f India 1950 and Section 100 Of Code of Civil Procedure.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rahul and Riya both are residents of Ambridge, a town in State of Metropolis, India and
are Hindus, they got married in February. 2011 at Ambridge, India under the Hindu Marriage
Act. 1955. Immediately after their marriage both of them shifted to Jabalpur. another city of
Metropolis State, India, where Rahul is working since 2009.

2. Rahul and Riya took a flat on rent in Jamalpur after shifting to the new city. Mr. Ramakant
Shukla is their landlord who stays on the 2nd floor and gives the 1st floor on rent to Rahul
and Riya.

3. Mr. Ramakant Shukla makes an agreement for 11 months (i.e. from 01st March. 2011 to
28th February, 2012) with Rahul and Riya regarding renting the flat and handing over the
premises to both of them on per month.

4. Rahul and Riya started living in the aforementioned premises from 01st March, 2011.
Things were going good until Rahul lost his job in last week of May, 2011. However, Riya
was completely unaware of this incident.

5. Riya started working in a Kidzee in Jamalpur as she used to get bored at home after Rahul
left for job. Riya was paid Rs, 5000/- per month. Rahul used to earn Rs. per month.

6. Due to the loss of job of Rahul, the rent of the property remained due for 6 months

consecutively. However, Riya did not know the reason for such delay as to the payment of the
rent and kept on asking Rahul while Rahul was trying to avoid confronting Riya.

7. At last in November, 2011 Mr. Ramakant Shukla sent a notice to the Couple expressing his

desire to not continue the agreement with the couple. The said notice also disclosed that Mr.
Ramakant Shukla wanted the couple to leave the premises within one month.

8. Receiving this notice Riya confronted Rahul that followed by a heated argument.

Following the argument Riya was informed about the unemployment status of Rahul.

9. Following this Riya left that house on 1st December, 2011 and went to home at Ambridge.

10. It was on 22nd April Riya came back to share a flat at Jamalpur that couple had rented.

11. Mr. Ramakanta made several requests to Rahul during the absence of Riya to pay the rent.

However every time Rahul has paid the rent for some months and again became defaulter for
several months. Therefore the payment became irregular.

12. After coming back Riya asked Rahul to leave the said flat and also talked to Mr.

Ramakanta Shukla that from now onwards Riya would stay in the flat and would pay the rent.
Riya also informed that she wanted to divorce him as he has hidden the fact of his
unemployment to her thereby causing mental trauma.

13. Mr Ramakanta Shukla did not want to face any problem therefore, he asked Riya gto

vacate the premises no matter she agreed to pay the rent to Mr. Ramakangta Shukla.
Ramakanta Shukla has issued a notice of eviction to the couple in May 2015.

14. When the couple did not vacate the premises Mr. Ramakanta Shukla filed a suit for

eviction against Mr. Rahul and Mfrs. Riya before the controller in June 2015. Mrs Riya in the
abovementioned suit contended that

a. she was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband regarding which she had to take a
decision,
b. She had a job in Jamalpur therefore she wished to stay back in the town and did not want
to go back to her parental home and be a burden upon her parents,
c. She needed a safe place to stay in the city

Therefore, vacating the premises would not be possible for her. She made a prayer before the
Controller to order for the continuation of the tenancy.

15. Mr. Ramakant Shukla contended that

a. He requires the suit property for his personal use, &

b. The couple became defaulter in paying the rent amount.

Therefore, he prayed before the Controller to order for eviction of the couple.

Simultaneously, Rahul filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal rights under section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 before the District Court stated-

a. The reason because of which Riya has withdrawn herself from the conjugal relationship
with him is unreasonable,
b. That he wanted to continue this marriage with Riya.

16. The Controller in the suit for eviction decided in favour of Mr. Ramakant Shukla and

ordered Ms. Riya to vacate the suit property.

17. The suit for restitution of conjugal right Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya was still pending before

the competent court.

 10

18. An appeal was filed by Ms. Riya against the decision of the Controller to the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Controller and asked Ms. Riya to vacate the
suit property.

19. . After the decision of the Controller Mr. Rahul left the suit property. However, Ms, Riya

did not vacate the suit property and decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

20. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal Ms. Riya filed an before the High Court of

Metropolis, India contending that the order of the trial court regarding eviction of Ms. Riya
from the suit property amounted to grave injustice. Therefore, the Appellate court should
consider the situation and order accordingly.

21. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court of Metropolis, India the issue Of

matrimonial dispute between Ms. Riya and her Husband Mr. Rahul came up. This also led to
the disclosure of pendency of suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the District Court.

 11

22. The High Court of Metropolis issued a notice under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India to the District Court and took up the suit for adjudication.

23. The high court of Metropolis has clubbed the appeal and the suit for restitution of conjugal
rights and fixed _____March 2019 for hearing.

24. The high court of Metropolis in India has framed the following issues to heard in

 12

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the present suit is maintainable both in law and in fact?

2. Whether gthere is landlord and tenant relationship between Riya and Ramakanta Shukla under
the Transfer of Property Act

3. Whether concealment of the fact of unemployment of Mr. Rahul is just and reasonable ground
for withdrawal from the conjugal relationship by Mrs Riya

4. Whether the Mr. Ramakant Shuklataken has taken reasonable ground to evict the appellant

5. Whether High Court of Metropolis, India has the power to take up any case from Subordinate
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

 13

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. Whether the present suit is maintainable both in law and in fact?

This is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the rent appeal is maintainable in
law and facts hut the matrimonial petition is not maintainable in law and facts,

• Whether rent appeal maintainable in law

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble H.C of Metropolis. India that the present appeal is
not maintainable u/s 100 of CPC. HC is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question
of law but in present appeal does not include any substantial question of law.

As per Section 100 1of CPC the second appeal to the High Court from an appellate decree.

Second appeal:

(1).Save as otherwise expressly provided in 'he body of this Code or by any other law for the
rime being inforce. an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by
any court subordinate to the High Court. if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a
substantial question of law.

1 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

 14

(2) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the
substantial question of involved in the appeal.

(3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it
shall formulate that question
In Annapoorani Ammal v. G. Thangapalam 2the Supreme Court held that a perusal of
Section 100 CPC clearly Indicates that the High Court had the jurisdiction to interfere only
when a substantial question of law is involved and even then it is expected that such a question
shall be so framed although the court is not bound by that question as the proviso Indiates, In
Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd-while determining the said
expression occurring in Article 133/ of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court laid down
the test as follows:

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial
would. in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and
substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in
the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal
Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is
settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question
are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised
is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.The present case

2 Annapoorani Ammal v. G. Thangapalam

 15

does not involve the substantial question of law and nothing anything of general public
importance is involved in the present case.

Kashibai v. Parwatibai 3the Supreme Court observed as under:

"It may not be out of place to mention that sub-section ( l) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure explicitly provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree
passed In by any court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Coult is satisfied that the case
involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section (4) of Section 100 provides that when the
High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case it shall
formulate that question.

Ammal v. G. Thangapalam 4the Supreme Court held that a perusal of Section 100 CPC
clearly Indiates that the High Court had the jurisdiction to interfere only when a substantial
question of law is involved and even then it is expected that such a question shall be so framed
although the court is not bound by that question as the proviso Indiates.'

The present case does not involve the substantial question of law and nothing anything of
general public importance is involved in the present case for ejectment of trespasser-plaintiffs
title undisputed Burden of proof Failure of defendant to prove his plea Effect Transfer of
Property Act under section 105.Where in suit for ejectment of defendant as trespasser the

3 Kashibai v. Parwatibai

4 Ammal v. G. Thangapalam

 16

plaintiff proves his title and the defendant sets up plea of title by way of tenancy under which
he seeks to be in occupation of the suit land, it will be for him to establish that title. Unless he
does so, the plaintiff by virtue of his title will be entitled to possession of suit land and the
defendant must be held to be trespasser.

Nathu lal vs.Union of India 5Every tenancy is based upon an agreement between two persons
and contains covenants expressed or implied by one person with the other. The tenancy must
stand or fall with the agreement on which it is founded and with the covenants contained in it
and they fall so does the tenancy.

According to the above mentioned cases and definition under section 105 of TPA clarifies that
the appellant is the tenant of Respondent because all the ingredients are satisfied:

The appellant have a transfer right to enjoy an immovable property. The appellant and
respondent make a valid agreement for a specific time period in which appellant name is
mentioned. An agreement for I I months (i.e. from 01st March. 2011 to 28th February, 2012)
with Rahul and Riya regarding renting the flat and handing over the premises to both of them
on 10,000/- per month.

The appellant has a personal issues as she had a job in Jamalpur therefore she wished to stay
back in the town and did not want to go back to her parental home and be a burden upon her
parents moreover she needed a safe place to stay in the city.

5 Nathu la' v. Union of India

 17

Priyavarte Mehta vs Amrendu Banerjee6, it provides that if the amount of 2 months' rent,
lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears and if tenant has not paid within
time fixed by the contract or if there is no such contract than by the last day of the month next
following that for which the rent is payable and not having deposited the rent in accordance
with the provision of the said Act. will be liable for eviction.
In the present scenario after the arrear of rent takes the agreement at end there is an implied
consent of the appellant that the tenancy will be continued as the respondent no 2 did able to
pay rent.

Grounds for eviction: A landlord can ask the tenant to leave if he has completed the tenure as
per the lease agreement. Other valid grounds are refusal to pay the rent or indulging in
unlawful activities on your property, Landlord can demand eviction if the tenant has sub-let a
part or all of your property Without your permission.
If applied in the present case the landlord have sufficient ground for eviction because the
appellant and respondent no.2 did not pay rent. The Controller and tribunal give valid and
justifiable decision.
In the present case the respondent no I gave the sufficient ground to evict the appellant and the
all the conditions are fulfilled by the respondent.

• Whether the matrimonial petition maintainable in law?

6 Priyavarte Mehta vs Amrendu Banerjee

 18

That the court having the Wider to adjudicate the matter under Article 227 of Constituion Of
India and the application is maintainable in law. The Hon 'ble high court has clubbed the
Appeal and the suit for restitution of conjugal rights which is its inherent power and the
constitutional right. The power of high court to take up the case and club it With subject matter
which are nexus With each Other are under the power of high court mentioned in Article 227
of constitution of India.

In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai 7the cannot held that. Article 2270f the Constitution
confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or
tribunal constituted by Or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. The jurisdiction under
Article227 can be traced back to Section 15 of High Courts Act. 1861 which gave apowerof
judicial superintendence to the High Court apart from and independently of the provisions of
other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. Section 107 Of the
Government Of India Act, 1915 and then Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935
were similarly worded and reproduced the predecessor provision, However. sub-section (2)
was added in Section 224 which confined the jurisdiction of the High Court to such judgments
of the inferior courts which were not otherwise subject to or revision. That restriction has not
carried forward in Article 227 Of the Constitution, although the court is not bound by that
question as the proviso Indiates.

7 Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai

 19

2. Whether there is landlord and tenant relationship between Ms. Riya and Mr.
Ramakant Shukla under the Transfer of Property Act?

This is submitted to this honourable court that the Appellant is not a tenant and Respondent is
the Landlord under Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, That the agreement of tenancy is
signed between the respondent no-I and respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 is only
paying the rent so appellant directly or indirectly not form any relation.

• The appellant is not the tenant under Transfer of Property Act

In State v. Bhupal chandraray 8It must conceded that the right to exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the property let out to him is an important feature of the rights of a lessee.

In the instant case there was no exclusive possession enjoyed by the appellant in the instant
case and she was come back to the property after 4 years.

Justice Bhagwati in the matter of Nanalal Girgharlal v. gulamnabi Jamaibhai Moterwala

9had explained the concept of a tenant remain in possession of the property after determination
of the lease in India. He said that 'we do not think that tenant possession in a property after
determination of lease can be equated to the trespasser. When a tenant remain in possession of

8 State v. Bhupal chandraray

9 Nanalal Girgharlal v. gulamnabi Jamaibhai Moterwala

 20

the property after determination of lease in India undoubtedly becomes a tenant at sufferance
but If the landlord accept the rent from him and otherwise assents s to his continuing in
possession. the tenancy is, in in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from
year to year according to the purpose for which the property is leased. The tenant has the
judicial possession of the property and no one can deprive him of such judicial possession'

In the present scenario after the expiration of the agreement there is was no consent of any kind
in the present case as there was various notices which were sent by the landlord for the eviction
and thereafter he has filed in the court of law.

So. the respondent in the instant case after giving various notices has files a suit for eviction
and got the favorable response.

Kestur Chand v Raman Rajan, 10Interpreting the definition of 'landlord' in Tamil Nadu
Buildings these two conditions the Controller shall consider whether the existing
accommodation of the landlord is sufficient to meet his requirement. The onus to establish the
plea of requirement is always upon the landlord. The landlord's claim will fall to ground if he
has any alternative suitable accommodation.

Deokinandan Boobna v Hara Sundar Sarkar 11The Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court has observed that section of the 1956 Act as amended in 1969 has imposed a statutory
obligation on the landlord to plead and to prove that he is not in possession of any reasonably

10 Kestur Chand v Raman Rajan,

11 Deokinandan Boobna v Hara Sundar Sarkar

 21

suitable accommodation elsewhere in order to entitle him to recover possession of any tenanted
premises for his own occupation

In the present case the respondent no I has a sufficient ground to evict the appellant and the
above two conditions are fulfilled by the respondent. The appellant is protected under section 6
of West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act as the rent was not paid for the 3 months and
moreover the respondent required the property for the personal use.

3. Whether concealment of the fact of unemployment of Mr. Rahul is just and reasonable
ground for withdrawal from the conjugal relationship by Ms. Riya?

This is to be submitted before the honourable court that the concealment of fact of
unemployment of respondent no. 2 is not reasonable ground for withdrawal from the
conjugal relationship,

4. Whether unemployment is a material fact of husband is the ground for Judicial

separation or divorce?

Judicial separation-Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the

commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation
on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (l) of Section 13, and in the case of a wife also
on any of the M. Narasimha Reddy v. M. Moosamma the judicial separations and arrangement
by which husband and wife live a part by the court decree. So for living separately a degree of

 22

judicial separation is required by the court of law which is not taken by the wife and still she is
living separately.

S. Hanumantha Rao v. S Raman 12The court held that removal of mangal sutra by wife to
irritate her husband may amount to mental cruelty but when it is done at the instance of the
husband himself such act cannot be said to be one that of Cruelty.

There is no reasonable ground for judicial separation and divorce. The husbands loved his wife
a lot and don't want to give unnecessary tensions to her wife so he hidden the fact of his
unemployment from the wife.

5. Whether the Mr. Ramakant Shuklataken has taken reasonable ground to evict the
appellant?

Protection of tenant against eviction Notwithstanding anything to the Contrary contained in

any other law for the time being in force or in any contract no order or decree for the recovery

12 S. Hanumantha Rao v. S Raman

 23

of the possession of any premises shall be made by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in
favour of the landlord against the tenant, except for certain grounds20

If applied the abovementioned section in the present case the protection to the appellant
(tenant) against the eviction should given because the appellant does not cover under the
exceptional grounds mention in the section 6. The Controller and tribunal fail to give the
justice to the innocent and give its decision contrary to the law. Because of this the appellant is
mentally disturb and with no option left file an appeal to this honourable court.

The prayer by the respondent no 1 is that he requires the suit property for his personal use.

Before jumping to the conclusion of respondent prayer the two conditions is required to fulfil
The two conditions mentioned in the case of Ramsewak v Sain Datta 13 a) He requires the
suit property for his personal use and b) that he has no Other suitable accommodation. Other
than these two conditions the Controller shall consider whether the existing accommodation of
landlord is sufficient to meet this requirement. The onus to establish the plea of requirement is
always upon the landlord.

13 Ramsewak v Sain Datta

 24

6. Whether the High Court or Metropolis, India has the power to take up any case from
a Subordinate Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the power of high court under article
227 of constitution of India is maintainable in the present case and there is nexus between these
two matters.

High Court power under article 227 of constitution of India is not maintainable in law.

Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

(1 ) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions the High Court may

a) call for returns from such courts;

b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and

c) prescribe forms in which books. entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts"
The honourable high court has clubbed the Appeal and suit restitution of conjugal rights which
is within its power and violating the constitutional right of appellant. The power of high

 25

countto take up the case and club it with some other subject matter is within the of power of
high mentioned in Article 227 constitution of India_

• High Court power under article 227 of constitution of India is maintainable in Facts.

In the present case the appellant filed a second appeal in this honourable High Court, when the
case is running in the high court, the court found cult that there is one more case in which the
appellant is a party without so in the interest of justice and by seeing a proper nexus between
both the matters this honourable court club it together.

State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu Afshan Guru and Ors 14This

Court held that the power must exercised sparingly, only to move subordinate courts and
Tribunals within the bounds of their authority to see that they obey the law. The power is not
available to be exercised to correct mere errors (whether on the facts or laws) and all cannot be
exercised -as the cloak of an appeal in disguise".

So, the power of high court is wide enough to take up any case from a Subordinate Court under
Article 227.
In Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr. Court observed that the
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are supervisory. Article 227 significantly
imitates the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 aside from that the
power of superintendence has been reached out by this Article to tribunals too. Under Article

14 New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu Afshan Guru and Ors

 26

227 is planned to be utilized sparingly and just in fitting cases to keep the subordinate courts
and tribunals inside the limits of their authority and not for rectifying unimportant mistakes.
The power might be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or disappointment to the
ends of justice.

 27

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited. the complainant most
humbly and respectfully pray and request the Humble Court:

1) To dismiss the appeal

2) To order the wife for restoration of conjugal rights
3) To grant any other relief which the hon'ble court may deem fit in the eyes of justice.
Equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the defendant shall be duty
bound as ever pray.

 28

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

a) The present suit is maintainable both in law and in fact.

The present suit is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Ms. Riya has challenged the decision of the tribunal under Article 227 which gives the High Court
of Metropolis the lower of superintendence over all the subordinate courts and tribunals under its
jurisdiction.

In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M. Mogal 15Supreme Court stated that
an order of the tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of the power of judicial review under
Articles 226 and 227.
The High Court of Metropolis has clubbed this appeal with Mr. Rahul's suit Restitution of
Conjugal Rights which was pending before the District Court. Section of the Code of Civil
Procedure gives the High Court the B)wer to withdraw any suit, appeal or proceeding pending in
any court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same2.
Hence the suit is maintainable both in law and in fact.

b) There is a landlord and tenant relationship between Ms. Riya and Mr. Ramakant

15 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M. Mogal

 29

Shukla.

Both Rahul and Riya’s Narne so they both are parties to agreement So there exists a clear landlord
relationship between Ms. Riya and Mr. Ramakant Shukla as she was the legal spouse of Mr Rahul.

Also every woman has a right to live in the shared household according to Section 17 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act' a shared household defined by the Act includes
a household which is owned and rented jointly by the aggrieved woman and the respondent
(related person). Here the couple together took the flat on rent so she has a right to stay in the flat
till the conjugal relationship is valid-

Also under Section 108(b) of Transfer of Property Acts the lessor is bound on the lessee's request
to put him in possession of the property and under Section 108(c) of the same the lessor shall be
deemed to contract with the lessee that, if the latter pays the rent reserved by the lease and
performs the contracts binding on the lessee, he may hold the property during the time limited by
the lease without interruption. The benefit of such contract shall be annexed to and go with the
lessee's interest as such, and may be enforced by every person in whom that interest is for the
whole or any part thereof from time to time vested.

c. The concealment or the fact unemployment of Mr. Rahul is a just and reasonable ground
for the withdrawal from the conjugal relationship by Ms. Riya.

(i) There was withdrawal from the society of other with a reasonable excuse

 30

In November, 2011 Mr. Ramakant Shukla had sent a notice to the couple expressing his desire not
to continue the agreement with the couple that he wanted the couple to leave the premises within I
month. After receiving the notice Ms. Riya left the premises and went to her home at Ambridge.
She acted according to the rights and liabilities of the lessee given under Section 108(q) of
Transfer of Act'. She had a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal from the society of Mr. Rahul.

(ii)Whether the concealment of the fact of unemployment a just and reasonable ground for
withdrawal?

On disclosure of Rahul's unemployed status a heated argument took place between the couple
following which Riya left the house and went to her home at Ambridge. She informed Rahul that
the fact he hid his unemployment status caused her mental trauma, Mental cruelty is a state of
mind. The feeling of deep anguish disappointment frustrates in one spouse caused by the conduct
of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty'. It is settled by a catena of decision that mental
cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harms. Restitution Of conjugal rights
would be refused if the husband is guilty of mental cruelty. It is not necessary that there should be
a physical assault, violate or torture. As the concealment of the fact of unemployment led to
mental trauma for Riya. it is a just and reasonable ground for withdrawal from conjugal
relationship.

The Court of Metropolis, India the power to take up any from a subordinate court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India-

 31

Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superitendence over all
courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction
excepting any court tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. This
power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative well as judicial, and is
capable of tiring invoked at instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo moto.
Section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the High Court the power to withdraw
any suit approval or proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the
same". Accordingly, the High Court of Metropolis, India has the power to take up the suit of
restitution of conjugal rights filed by Mr. Rahul against Mrs. Riya from the District Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India- Also under Article 227 the decisions of tribunals can be
challenged,12 and Ms- Riya filed the appeal under the Same.

 32

PRAYER

Wherefore in the lights of the facts slated. issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments advanced. it is
most humbly prayed by the appellant before the honourable High Court of Metropolis that it may
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The order of the trial court regarding the eviction of Ms. Riya from suit property amounts to grave
injustice.

2. Ms. Riya can continue staying in the suit property as a tenant.

3. The suit brought by Mr. Rahul for Restitution of Conjugal Rights should be dismissed.

Pass any such order that it deems fit and proper in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience



 33