2004 JTR(SC) 339
2004 17 AIC 51 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 3892 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 4221 ; 2004 2 AllCJ 1818 ; 2004 AllLJ 2811 ; 2004 55 AllLR 319 ; 2004 2 AWC 1721 ; 2004 3 CHN(SC) 152 ; 2004 3 JCR(SC) 85 ; 2004 4 JT 127 ; 2004 2 KLT(SN) 4 ; 2004 3 MLJ 72 ; 2004 1 RCJ 104 ; 2004 2 RCR(Civ) 493 ; 2004 1 RCR(Rent) 515 ; 2004 2 RentLR 495 ; 2004 RLR 315 ; 2004 3 Scale 481 ; 2004 3 SCC 682 ; 2004 3 SCR 250 ; 2004 2 WBLR 577 ; 2004 1 WLC 682 ; 2004 KHC 741 ; 2004 2 Supreme 582
2004(2) Supreme 582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Ranjeet Singh -Appellant
versus
Ravi Prakash -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1685 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19166/2001)
Decided on 18-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. V. Mohana, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
To be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, error committed by Court or Authority on whose judgment High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self evident.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227, Art.226
UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION ACT : S.21(1)(b), S.21(1)(a)
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 governs the tenancy relationship between the landlord and the tenant in question. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) and Section 21(1)(b), invoking the need for the premises for their own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements, coupled with allegations of the shop being in a dilapidated condition and posing safety risks, which necessitated demolition and reconstruction. The provisions of the Act, read alongside the principles of evidence appreciation under civil procedure, form the statutory framework for such eviction orders. The High Court intervened under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing its writ jurisdiction to set aside the appellate judgment and restore the trial courts order. This action was challenged as exceeding the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, since the underlying dispute involved factual re-appreciation rather than a patent error of law.
(B) Key legal principles include the limited scope of High Court supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, which does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or correction of factual inferences as would an appellate court; the requirement that errors cognizable by writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be self-evident patent errors; and the deference owed to the findings of the appellate court on factual matters where two reasonable interpretations exist.
Facts of the case:
The appellant landlord sought eviction of the respondent tenant from premises occupied for a fertilizer and agricultural implements business, relying on grounds under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Rent Act, including the need for the premises for the appellants own business and the dilapidated condition of the shop. The Trial Court dismissed the eviction, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal finding both grounds valid after assessing evidence including local commissioner reports, and the High Court set aside the appellate decision restoring the trial courts order.
Findings of Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the appellate judgment on merits, as the facts presented involved re-appreciation of evidence and did not constitute a self-evident error. The appellate court was competent to form its own opinion on the evidence, and such factual findings cannot be disturbed by a writ court exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was competent to set aside the appellate judgment on factual grounds under Article 226 or Article 227; whether the appellate court correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the provisions of the Rent Act in allowing the eviction.
Ratio Decidendi:
A writ court cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate evidence or correct inferences; the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting patent errors of law, not factual re-evaluation, and the appellate courts findings on factual disputes are binding where reasonable inferences differ.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, the Appellate Courts judgment is restored, and the tenant is given four months to vacate the premises.
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 governs the tenancy relationship between the landlord and the tenant in question. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) and Section 21(1)(b), invoking the need for the premises for their own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements, coupled with allegations of the shop being in a dilapidated condition and posing safety risks, which necessitated demolition and reconstruction. The provisions of the Act, read alongside the principles of evidence appreciation under civil procedure, form the statutory framework for such eviction orders. The High Court intervened under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing its writ jurisdiction to set aside the appellate judgment and restore the trial courts order. This action was challenged as exceeding the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, since the underlying dispute involved factual re-appreciation rather than a patent error of law.
(B) Key legal principles include the limited scope of High Court supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, which does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or correction of factual inferences as would an appellate court; the requirement that errors cognizable by writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be self-evident patent errors; and the deference owed to the findings of the appellate court on factual matters where two reasonable interpretations exist.
Facts of the case:
The appellant landlord sought eviction of the respondent tenant from premises occupied for a fertilizer and agricultural implements business, relying on grounds under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Rent Act, including the need for the premises for the appellants own business and the dilapidated condition of the shop. The Trial Court dismissed the eviction, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal finding both grounds valid after assessing evidence including local commissioner reports, and the High Court set aside the appellate decision restoring the trial courts order.
Findings of Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the appellate judgment on merits, as the facts presented involved re-appreciation of evidence and did not constitute a self-evident error. The appellate court was competent to form its own opinion on the evidence, and such factual findings cannot be disturbed by a writ court exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was competent to set aside the appellate judgment on factual grounds under Article 226 or Article 227; whether the appellate court correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the provisions of the Rent Act in allowing the eviction.
Ratio Decidendi:
A writ court cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate evidence or correct inferences; the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting patent errors of law, not factual re-evaluation, and the appellate courts findings on factual disputes are binding where reasonable inferences differ.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, the Appellate Courts judgment is restored, and the tenant is given four months to vacate the premises.
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the landlord-owner of the suit premises in occupation of respondent as the tenant. Proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated by the landlord on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The appellant s case was that the premises in occupation of the respondent were required bona fide by the appellant for his own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements. It was also alleged that the shop in occupation of the respondent was in a dilapidated condition. It was an old construction. Cracks had developed in the walls and the lintel. The corners of walls had given away. The local municipality had served a notice on the appellant on 27.02.1985 to demolish the verandah and lintel. Hence, it was necessary to demolish the shop and reconstruct the same.
3. The Prescribed Authority, which is the Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15.02.1989 directed the appellant s application to be dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed. Vide the judgment dated 17.07.1997, the learned Additional District Judge held the availability of both the grounds of eviction in favour of the appellant. The learned ADJ entered into re-appreciation of evidence and assigned reasons to show why the findings arrived at by the Trial Court could not have been sustained. In the shop, in occupation of the respondent, he was running the business of fertilizers and agricultural implements and thus it could not be denied that the shop was suited for the business which the appellant proposed to have in the premises. There were two reports by two Local Commissioners, submitted on spot inspection, one of which was believed and such other evidence as available on record was appreciated in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner. The Appellate Court was persuaded to form an opinion, and in our opinion rightly, that the shop was an old construction which needed to be demolished as it was in a bad shape.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the respondent preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 226 and alternatively under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The High Court has set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and restored that of the Trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Court. Though not specifically stated, the phraseology employed by the High Court in its judgment, goes to show that the High Court has exercised its certiorari jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the Appellate Court. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.- (2003) 6 SCC 675, this Court has ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the Court or Authority on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging into a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai (supra) that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging into re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal. The High Court has itself recorded in its judgment that - "considering the evidence on the record carefully" it was inclined not to sustain the judgment of the Appellate Court. On its own showing, the High Court has acted like an Appellate Court which was not permissible for it to do under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution.
5. The approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Appellate Court is restored. The respondent is allowed four months time from today for vacating the suit premises subject to filing the usual undertaking within a period of 4 weeks from today. No order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
***************
00030