Mohd. Inam vs Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Art. 227 – Jurisdiction under – Nature and Scope of – Held: Though the powers u/Art. 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors – In the guise of exercising jurisdiction u/Art. 227, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court has patently erred in holding, that the revision entertained by the District Judge against the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 along with the final order of release dated 31.5.2007 was not tenable. The High Court has totally erred in observing, that the order of the High Court dated 23.8.2006 dismissing the writ petition had attained finality since it was not challenged before this Court. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration, that though the vacancy order was challenged in a writ petition, the High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006, while dismissing the writ petition had reserved the right of the petitioners (appellant and proforma respondent No.3 herein) before it to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order passed under Section 16. The observation that the High Court in its earlier order dated 23.8.2006, could not have granted liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order is also contrary to the settled principles of judicial propriety. [Para 16] [79-C-E]

1.2 In the present case, the appellant and deceased original tenant had rightly filed a writ petition challenging the order of vacancy dated 4.6.2003. Though the appellant and deceased original tenant could have waited till passing of the final order u/s. 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, they had in fact challenged the vacancy order before the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006 had specifically granted them liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of *Achal Misra wherein it is specifically held, that even if a party does not challenge the vacancy order by way of writ petition, it is still open to it to challenge the same order along with the final order passed under Section 16 in the revision under Section 18. The High Court in the impugned judgment totally misinterpreting the order dated 23.8.2006, on an erroneous premise, held that the vacancy order could not have been challenged along with the final order. The finding is totally contrary to the law laid down in *Achal Misra case which is a binding precedent. [Paras 11, 13, 14 and 33] [77-G; 78-D-G; 88-B-C]

*Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh and others

(2005) 5 SCC 531: [2005] 3 SCR 439 – relied on.

Tirlok Singh and Co. v. District Magistrate, Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 726 : [1976] 3 SCR 942; Ganpat Roy v. ADM (1985) 2 SCC 307 : [1985] 3 SCR 384; Narayani Devi v. Mahendra Kr. Tripathi and others (1999) 9 SCC

61 – referred to.

2. In examining the legality and the propriety of the order under challenge in revision, what is required to be seen by the High Court, is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved is such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like. If such a finding is allowed to stand, it would be gross miscarriage of justice and is open to correction because it is not to be treated as a finding according to law. If the above principles are applied to the facts of the present case, it could be seen, that the District Judge was fully justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer. [Paras 25 & 26][84-A-D] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 : [2014] 14 SCR 1379 followed. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 390; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and others (1999) 1 SCC

141 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 188; Harshavardhan

Chokkani v. Bhupendra N. Patel and others (2002) 3 SCC 626 : [2002] 2 SCR 133 – relied on

3.1 The District Judge had considered the words “allowed to be occupied” in Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 as interpreted by this Court in **Harish Tandon case wherein the Court had clearly held that the said words would be attracted if the possession of such a building had been given to a person, who was not family member of the tenant i.e. if any person other than the family member was permitted to occupy such premises in his own right. In such an event, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12, would be attracted. This Court had further held, that clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 would not be attracted when any person, who is a member of the family resides in such building either along with the landlord or the original tenant. [Para 28] [86-A-C]

3.2 A perusal of the inspection report clearly established, that the original tenant was residing in the tenanted premises along with his son, brother’s son and their families. As such, the inspection report clearly established, that no person who was not a member of the tenant’s family was allowed to occupy the premises in his own right. As such, the finding of the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer that the landlord had proved the case under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 was totally contrary to the law as interpreted by this Court in the case of **Harish Tandon. Not only that, the finding as recorded by the said authority was totally on misreading or ignorance of the evidence on the record. It could thus be seen, that the case would squarely fall in the category of exercising the jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. In that view of the matter, the District Judge was wholly justified in interfering with the order impugned before him and reversing the same. [Para 29][86-D-F]

**Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate,

Allahabad, U.P. and others (1995) 1 SCC 537 : [1995]

1 SCR 56 – relied on.

4. The High Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was totally erroneous. The District Judge while exercising his power under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972 and after finding that the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer was totally contrary to the law laid down by this Court in **Harish Tandon, while interpreting clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 and also that the order passed was totally on a perverse reading of the evidence, had interfered with the said order and reversed the same. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. Though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. [Paras 32-33][87-F, B-C; 88-A-B]

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v.

Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960] 1 SCR 890; Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta & Anr. (1975) 1 SCC 858; M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 587 : [1978] 1 SCR 797; Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 2 SCC 573 : [1978] 3 SCR 198;

Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha & Ors. v. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr. (1982) 3 SCC 514;

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447 : [1986] 3 SCR 866; Venkatlal G. Pittie and another v. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 3 SCC 558 : [1987] 3 SCR 593; State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65; State Through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and others (2003) 6 SCC

641 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 130; Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash (2004) 3 SCC 682 : [2004] 3 SCR 250;

Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs. and others (2008) 9 SCC 1 : [2008] 13 SCR 353; Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms.) and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others (2010) 1 SCC 217 : [2009] 15 SCR 558 – relied on.