A division bench of Justice A V Sawant and Justice R J Kochar, while dismissing the petitions, also resolved a contentious point of law and held that such intra-court appeals could be allowed only if the petitions were filed under Article 226 (calling for the original jurisdiction of the high court) and not under Article 227 (asking for the supervisory powers of the high court on the lower court's orders).

Three of the petitions - Madhukar Chandrabhan Mohite v/s Balkrishna Govind Sulakha, and two petitions by Sidheshwar Paradkar v/s Parvatiben Sane and Maharashtra State RoadTransport v/s Sumatidevi Dhanwatay - had gone all the way to the Supreme Court, but were sent back to the high court on May 7 to decide on the law point.

The question before the bench was whether the petitions were maintainable. The advocates contended that, for the landlords, the appeals could not be maintained as they were filed under Article 227.

It was pointed out that in the famed Umaji Meshram and others v/s Radhikabai case in 1986, the apex court had laid down guidelines on such issues and had dismissed the case holding that it lay under Article 227, and could not be appealed against through an LPA. An appeal under Article 227, against a single judge order of the high court is expressly barred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Chartered High Courts.

However, the tenants' advocates countered that if the facts of the case justify a party in filing an application either under Article 226 or Article 227, even if the party files his application under both the Articles in order not todeprive him of the right to appeal, the court ought to treat it as being made under Article 226.

The four LPAs were titled either under Article 226 or Article 227. In their order dated 6 and 12 August, the bench found them all to be under Article 227 and hence unmaintainable.

The bench also referred to the Maharashtra High Court (hearing of Writ Petitions by Division bench, and abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986, that sought to abolish all kinds of appeals against single judge orders whether in the original or appellate jurisdictions, ``to discourage further litigation in the same court and give finality to the decision of the High Court, even though by a single judge''.

Since the validity of the Act is challenged before the apex court, the bench did not comment, but stated that it is difficult to accept the abolition of all appeals. ``If there is no intra court appeal, it may adversely affect not only the Union of India and the states, but also poor workmen wrongfully dismissed fromservice, students wrongly denied admissions, farmers who barely manage to eke out a livelihood as also persons belonging to the backward and disadvantaged classes who claim protection of their fundamental rights'' says the order.