An intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order passed on the appellant’s consent.

The appellant was recognised as a tenant of property belonging to the third-respondent temple and had been permitted to put up a superstructure on the premises.

Rent arrears of ₹3,75,920 were claimed from him. In W.P. No.24695 of 2022, the appellant consented to pay the arrears in four instalments, execute a gift deed in favour of the temple in respect of the superstructure, and accept fixation of rent by the Court.

Based on that consent, the Single Judge directed payment of the arrears in four monthly instalments, fixed the monthly rent at ₹6,360 with a 15% enhancement once every three years, directed execution of the gift deed, and permitted eviction in case of default.

The appellant filed the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, contending that the arrears were unsustainable and that the rent had been fixed without following the proper procedure.

1. Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Writ Court on the basis of the appellant’s consent.

2. Whether the directions regarding payment of arrears, fixation and enhancement of rent, execution of the gift deed, and eviction upon default suffered from legal error or procedural infirmity.

An order passed by a writ court on the basis of a party’s consent cannot ordinarily be challenged by that party in an appeal; the Division Bench relied on S. Thilagavathy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011 (6) SCC 365, for this principle.

The Court further applied the basic landlord–tenant principle that a recognised tenant is liable to pay rent to the owner of the property.

The appeal was considered under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Division Bench found that the impugned directions directly reflected the appellant’s own submissions before the Single Judge: he had sought permission to pay ₹3,75,920 in four instalments, agreed to execute a gift deed for the superstructure, and requested recognition as the temple’s tenant.

Since the order was founded on that consent, the appellant could not subsequently challenge it in an intra-court appeal, applying the rule in S. Thilagavathy.

Independently, the Court held that the temple’s ownership, the appellant’s status as tenant, and the existence of rent arrears were undisputed.

The Single Judge had granted the requested instalment facility, fixed rent after considering the area and construction, and incorporated the appellant’s agreement concerning the superstructure.

Consequently, the Division Bench found no error or infirmity warranting appellate interference.

It also held, on merits, that the directions were justified and legally unobjectionable.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected interim applications were closed.