Supreme Court of India
MOHD. INAMversusSANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 445
- Decided
- 26 June 2020
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- NAVIN SINHA
Holding
A vacancy order under Section 12(1)(b) may be challenged along with the final order in a revision, and the Rent Controller’s order was illegal as only family members occupied the premises, rendering the High Court’s Article 227 intervention erroneous.
Summary
The appellant, Mohd. Inam, challenged a vacancy declaration made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 12(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, alleging that only his family members occupied the premises and therefore the vacancy provision was inapplicable. The High Court dismissed the landlord's revision, but later allowed the landlord’s writ petition, holding that the vacancy order could not be contested together with the final release order under Section 16. The Supreme Court held that, following Achal Misra, a vacancy order may be challenged in the same revision as the final order, and that the Rent Controller’s finding was illegal because the occupants were family members, contrary to the Harish Tandon interpretation of Section 12(1)(b). Consequently, the High Court’s exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction was erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, quashing the High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- The scope of revisional power under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act: whether a vacancy order can be challenged together with the final order in a revision.
- Whether the Rent Controller’s declaration of vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) was valid when only family members occupied the premises.
- Whether the High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 amounted to an appellate function and was therefore improper.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 105(1), s. 105(2)
- Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 12(1)(b), s. 16(1)(b), s. 18
Subjects
vacancy orderrevision under Section 18Article 227 jurisdictionrent controlfamily occupancyU.P. Urban Buildings Actrevisional powerlandlord-tenant dispute
Judgment
64 [2020]
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 64
REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A MOHD. INAM
v.
SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2020)
B JUNE 26, 2020
[NAVIN SINHA AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and
Eviction) Act, 1972:
ss. 12(1)(b) and 16(1)(b) – Application by land-lord seeking
C declaration of vacancy u/s. 16(1)(b) – Alleging that the tenant had
sub-let the tenanted premises – In the inspection report of the
premises it was stated that the tenant was residing in the premises
alongwith his sons, brother’s son and their families – Rent Control
and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant – In writ petition
D challenging the order declaring the premises vacant, High Court
granted liberty to the tenant to challenge the same after the final
order would be passed u/s. 16 – Final order was passed in favour
of land-lord – Revision filed against the final order as well as the
order declaring vacancy – District Judge allowed the Revision,
setting aside both the orders – Writ petition against the order of
E District Judge was allowed holding inter alia that vacancy could not
have been challenged alongwith final order – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: In view of judgment in *Achal Misra case, it was
open to the tenant to challenge the vacancy order along with final
order in Revision u/s. 18 – Since the tenant was residing along with
F his sons, brother’s son and their families i.e. his family members,
s.12(1)(b) would not get attracted – Thus the Authority’s (Rent
Control and Eviction Officer) exercise of its jurisdiction was either
illegal or with material irregularity – Therefore, the District Judge
was justified in exercise of its Revisional power in interfering with
the order of the Authority – The exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 227
G by High Court was unwarranted and unjustified – Constitution of
India – Art. 227.
Revision:
Revisional power – Scope of – Held: While exercising
Revisional power, what is required to be seen is whether the order
H
64
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 65
under challenge is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding A
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 person could arrive.
Constitution of India:
Art. 227 – Jurisdiction under – Nature and Scope of – Held: B
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. C
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 D
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, E
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 F
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 G
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
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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]
C [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.
D
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
E
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
F 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]
G
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar
Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 : [2014] 14 SCR 1379 -
followed.
H
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 67
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. A
(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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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] H
1 SCR 56 – relied on.
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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;
E 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
F 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.
G 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)
H Through LRs. and others (2008) 9 SCC 1 : [2008] 13
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 69
SCR 353; Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms.) and others v. A
Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others (2010) 1
SCC 217 : [2009] 15 SCR 558 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2005) 3 SCR 439 relied on Para 3
B
[1976] 3 SCR 942 referred to Para 7
[1985] 3 SCR 384 referred to Para 8
(1999) 9 SCC 61 referred to Para 14
[2014] 14 SCR 1379 followed Para 24
C
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 390 relied on Para 20
[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 188 relied on Para 21
[2002] 2 SCR 133 relied on Para 22
[1995] 1 SCR 56 relied on Para 28 D
[1960] 1 SCR 890 relied on Para 32
(1975) 1 SCC 858 relied on Para 32
[1978] 1 SCR 797 relied on Para 32
[1978] 3 SCR 198 relied on Para 32 E
(1982) 3 SCC 514 relied on Para 32
[1986] 3 SCR 866 relied on Para 32
[1987] 3 SCR 593 relied on Para 32
[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65 relied on Para 32 F
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 130 relied on Para 32
[2004] 3 SCR 250 relied on Para 32
[2008] 13 SCR 353 relied on Para 32
G
[2009] 15 SCR 558 relied on Para 32
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2697
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2017 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1074 of 2008 (M/S). H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv., Kshitij Mudgal, Ekansh Bansal,
Parmanand Gaur, Advs. for the Appellant.
Arvind Kumar Gupta, Anurag Mangla, Rishi Bhardwaj, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017
passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at
C Nainital in Writ Petition No.1074 of 2008 (M/S) thereby, allowing the
writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – landlords herein.
3. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present
appeal are thus:
Rashid Ahmed, the father of the present appellant, was the original
D
tenant of House No.61/8, Ground Floor, Green Pasture View, Landhour
Bazar, Mussoorie (hereinafter referred to as “the suit premises” or “the
premises”) since 1965. The respondents had purchased the suit premises
from the original landlord Sudesh Kumar Singhal in the year 1998 and,
as such, became the tenant - Rashid Ahmed’s landlord from 1998. The
E respondents – landlord moved an application before the Rent Controller
and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on 10.6.1999, contending therein, that
Rashid Ahmed had sub-let the property to some other persons who were
not the family members of the tenant. As such, they prayed for declaration
of vacancy under the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter
F
referred to as “U.P. Act, 1972” or “the Act”).
On the application of the landlord, a Rent Control Inspector was
appointed to inspect the suit premises. The Rent Control Inspector visited
the suit premises and submitted his report on 16.08.1999. In the report, it
was stated, that Rashid Ahmed, who was the tenant, was not present in
G the premises at the time of the inspection and he was informed by the
occupants that he had gone to his village Bhatpura in Saharanpur District.
The report further stated, that Rashid and Akbar were sons of Hasunuddin
and, as such, real brothers. The report stated that, there were several
persons residing in the premises and they comprised of four separate
H families, namely, (1) Rashid Ahmed; (2) Inam s/o Rashid Ahmed along
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 71
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
with his six children; (3) Shabbir Ahmed, wife Shafikan and daughter; A
and (4) Ayyub and his children Naseem and Nashima respectively.
The original tenant - Rashid Ahmed filed objections to the inspection
report stating therein, that he and his brother and their families are living
in the premises as tenant. He further stated, that tenancy was in his
name and there was no other person who was outside his family residing B
in the said premises. He, therefore, resisted declaring the suit premises
as vacant.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the house owner informed
the competent authority that, on 19.1.2000 Rashid Ahmed died in his
village Bhatpura leaving behind his son Mohd. Inam, the present appellant, C
as his legal heir. As such, the name of Rashid Ahmed came to be
substituted with that of the present appellant. The present appellant filed
his application stating therein, that he along with other family members
of late Rashid Ahmed was residing in the said premises.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion D
that the persons, who were presently residing in the premises had not
produced any evidence to prove, that they were living as tenants since
1965 along with late Rashid Ahmed. As such, he came to the conclusion,
that the tenants had allowed persons to reside in the premises, who are
not members of the family and, as such, declared the suit premises as
vacant vide order dated 4.6.2003. E
Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant along with his cousin
Shabbir Ahmed filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal
at Nainital being Writ Petition No. 7 (MS) of 2003. The High Court vide
order dated 23.8.2006 by referring to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others1 granted F
liberty to the petitioners therein to challenge the order dated 4.6.2003
after the final order i.e. order of release/allotment was passed under
Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972.
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer passed a final order
under Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972 on 31.5.2007 thereby, declaring G
the suit premises ‘vacant’ in favour of the respondents – landlord.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and said Shabbir Ahmed
filed a revision being R.C.R. No.122 of 2007 before the District Judge,
1
(2005) 5 SCC 531 H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A Dehradun as provided under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972. The learned
District Judge, Dehradun, by a well-reasoned order dated 5.6.2008,
allowed the revision thereby, setting aside the order of vacancy dated
4.6.2003 and the final order dated 31.5.2007.
Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents No.1 and 2 – landlord
B filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
being Writ Petition No.1074 of 2008 (M/S). As stated earlier, the said
writ petition is allowed by the impugned order dated 26.10.2017. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal by special leave.
4. We have heard Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned Senior
C Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Arvind Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – landlord.
5. The main ground on which the writ petition has been allowed
by the High Court is that, the learned District Judge had committed
illegality in entertaining the joint revision filed against the vacancy order
D as well as the final order. The High Court in the impugned order has
observed, that the judgment and order dated 23.8.2006, passed by the
said High Court dismissing the writ petition had not been challenged
before this Court by the respondents No. 1 and 2 therein (appellant and
proforma respondent No.3 herein). The High Court further goes to
E observe, that the respondents therein (appellant and proforma respondent
No.3 herein) had elected not to assail the vacancy order as well as the
order dated 23.8.2006, passed by the High Court dismissing the said writ
petition. It goes to further observe, that after dismissal of the writ petition
there was no occasion for the High Court to grant liberty to the
respondents therein, to avail remedy of revision, challenging the order of
F vacancy dated 4.6.2003. The learned Judge has gone to further observe,
that the revision against the order dated 4.6.2003 was not maintainable
and that the District Judge had committed patent illegality in entertaining
the revision.
6. We find, that the impugned judgment delivered by the High
G Court is not only on misreading of the law but also misreading of the
facts. It will be relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Achal Misra (supra). It will also be relevant to refer to the background
in which the said judgment by the learned three Judges was rendered.
H
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 73
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
7. In Tirlok Singh and Co. vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow2, A
two learned Judges of this Court had held, that under the scheme of the
Act, an order notifying a vacancy by itself does no injury and causes no
prejudice to the interests of any party. It was held, that a notification of
the vacancy was only a step in aid of an order of allotment or release
and only when such orders are passed, the landlord or the tenant can B
have a grievance. After considering the provisions of Section 16 and
Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972, as they existed at the time of delivery
of the judgment, it was held in Tirlok Singh (supra) that, a writ petition
filed against an order declaring a vacancy only, was premature, as the
order did not affect the rights of the person who challenges that order.
C
8. The decision in Tirlok Singh (supra) came up for consideration
before a Bench of three learned Judges in the case of Ganpat Roy vs.
ADM3. In Ganpat Roy (supra), the Bench of three learned Judges
disagreed with the proposition laid down in Tirlok Singh (supra), that
the rights of the landlord or the tenant are not affected merely by the
notification of a vacancy. No doubt, in the meantime, U.P. Act,1972 had D
undergone an amendment and an appeal against the final order of
allotment had been replaced by a revision under more restricted
conditions. In Ganpat Roy (supra), it was observed, that the observations
in Tirlok Singh (supra), holding,that it was unnecessary for the District
Magistrate to hear the parties before notifying the vacancy, did not appear E
to be correct. It was also observed, that it also did not appear to be
correct to hold, that an order notifying the vacancy did no injury and
caused no prejudice to the interests of any party because an order
notifying the vacancy could be objected to. It was held, that the
correctness of the decision in Tirlok Singh (supra) was open to doubt.
Their Lordships in Ganpat Roy (supra) therefore held, that the scheme F
of the Act would show that a tenant of a premises, in whose case it was
found that there was a deemed vacancy, had no efficacious or adequate
remedy under the Act to challenge that finding. It was, therefore, held,
that a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution filed by such
a tenant in order to challenge that finding could not, therefore, be said to G
be premature.
9. In Achal Misra (supra), the High Court had allowed the writ
petitions filed by the allottees on the ground, that the landlord not having
2
(1976) 3 SCC 726
3
(1985) 2 SCC 307 H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A challenged the original order notifying the vacancy then and there, was
precluded from challenging the order notifying the vacancy in revision
against the final order or in further challenges to it in the High Court.
When the judgment of the High Court came up for consideration before
the two learned Judges of this Court, it was noticed, that it could not be
said that the question of vacancy, if not challenged by a separate writ
B
petition on its notification, could not be questioned along with the final
order, in the revision filed under Section 18 of the Act. It was observed,
that the question of vacancy pertained to a jurisdictional fact and can be
challenged in the revision filed against the allotment order passed by the
District Magistrate. It was further observed, that in case it was found,
C that there was no vacancy, the order of allotment had to be set aside.
As such, the learned two Judges referred the matter to a larger Bench.
The learned three Judges in the judgment in Achal Misra (supra)
observed thus:
“11. On the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the preliminary
D step is to declare a vacancy. At this stage, an enquiry has to be
made including an enquiry involving at least two respectable
neighbours. It is thereafter that the vacancy has to be notified and
objections invited. This is followed by either dropping of the
proceedings on the objections being upheld that there was no
vacancy, or by allotment to a tenant on finding the vacancy, or in
E ordering a release of the building, in case a landlord was found
entitled to have such a release under the Act. Therefore, the
notifying of a vacancy is only a step in the process of making an
allotment of the building to a tenant. The Act contemplates that
no building should be let out by a landlord except through the
F process of allotment by the Rent Control Authority. Since the order
notifying a vacancy is only a step in passing the final order in a
proceeding under the Act regarding allotment, it is clear that the
same could be challenged while challenging the final order, unless
there is anything in the Act precluding such a challenge or
conferring a finality to the order notifying a vacancy. It was held
G long ago by the Privy Council in Moheshur Sing v. Bengal
Govt. [(1859) 7 Moo IA 283] (Moo IA at p. 302)
“We are not aware of any law or regulation prevailing in India
which renders it imperative upon the suitor to appeal from every
interlocutory order by which he may conceive himself aggrieved,
H
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 75
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
under the penalty, if he does not so do, of forfeiting forever the A
benefit of the consideration of the appellate court. No authority or
precedent has been cited in support of such a proposition, and we
cannot conceive that anything would be more detrimental to the
expeditious administration of justice than the establishment of a
rule which would impose upon the suitor the necessity of so
B
appealing; whereby on the one hand he might be harassed with
endless expense and delay, and on the other inflict upon his
opponent similar calamities.”
12. In Sheonoth v. Ramnath [(1865) 10 MIA 413] the Privy
Council reiterated that a party is not bound to appeal from every
interlocutory order which is a step in the procedure that leads to a C
final decree. It is open on appeal from such final decree to question
an interlocutory order.
13. This principle is recognised by Section 105(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure and reaffirmed by Order 43 Rule 1-A of the Code.
The two exceptions to this rule are found in Section 97 of the D
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that a preliminary
decree passed in a suit could not be challenged in an appeal against
the final decree based on that preliminary decree and Section
105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which precludes a
challenge to an order of remand at a subsequent stage while filing E
an appeal against the decree passed subsequent to the order of
remand. All these aspects came to be considered by this Court
in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [(1960) 3 SCR 590 :
AIR 1960 SC 941. Ed.: See also(1981) 2 SCC 103, (2004) 12
SCC 754 and (2005) 3 SCC 422] wherein, after referring to the
decisions of the Privy Council, it was held that an interlocutory F
order which had not been appealed from either because no appeal
lay or even though an appeal lay, an appeal was not taken, can be
challenged in an appeal from a final decree or order. It was further
held that a special provision was made in Section 105(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure as regards orders of remand where the G
order of remand itself was made appealable. Since Section 105(2)
did not apply to the Privy Council and can have no application to
appeals to the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and the Supreme
Court could examine even the correctness of an original order of
remand while considering the correctness of the decree passed
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A subsequent to the order of remand. The same principle was
reiterated in Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India [AIR 1964
SC 1658] and in other subsequent decisions.
14. It is thus clear that an order notifying a vacancy which leads
to the final order of allotment can be challenged in a proceeding
B taken to challenge the final order, as being an order which is a
preliminary step in the process of decision-making in passing the
final order. Hence, in a revision against the final order of allotment
which is provided for by the Act, the order notifying the vacancy
could be challenged. The decision in Ganpat Roy case[(1985) 2
SCC 307] which has disapproved the ratio of the decision in Tirlok
C Singh and Co.[(1976) 3 SCC 726] cannot be understood as laying
down that the failure to challenge the order notifying the vacancy
then and there, would result in the loss of right to the aggrieved
person of challenging the notifying of vacancy itself, in a revision
against the final order of allotment. It has only clarified that even
D the order notifying the vacancy could be immediately and
independently challenged. The High Court, in our view, has
misunderstood the effect of the decision of this Court in Ganpat
Roy case [(1985) 2 SCC 307] and has not kept in mind the general
principles of law governing such a question as expounded by the
Privy Council and by this Court. It is nobody’s case that there is
E anything in the Act corresponding either to Section 97 or to Section
105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 precluding a challenge
in respect of an order which ultimately leads to the final order.
We overrule the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the
present case and in Kunj Lata v. Xth ADJ [(1991) 2 RCJ 658]
F that in a revision against the final order, the order notifying the
vacancy could not be challenged and that the failure to
independently challenge the order notifying the vacancy would
preclude a successful challenge to the allotment order itself. In
fact, the person aggrieved by the order notifying the vacancy can
be said to have two options available. Either to challenge the order
G notifying the vacancy then and there by way of a writ petition or
to make the statutory challenge after a final order of allotment
has been made and if he is aggrieved even thereafter, to approach
the High Court. It would really be a case of election of remedies.”
10. It could thus be seen, that considering the scheme of the Act;
H the principles as recognized by Section 105(1) and Order XLIII Rule 1-
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 77
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the various judgments of the A
Privy Council as well as this Court, it was held, that an interlocutory
order which had not been appealed from, either because no appeal lay
or even though an appeal lay, an appeal was not taken, can be challenged
in an appeal from a final decree or order. It was therefore held, that an
order, notifying a vacancy which leads to the final order of allotment can
B
be challenged in a proceeding taken out to challenge the final order, as
being an order which is a preliminary step in the process of decision
making in passing the final order. The learned three Judges therefore
held, that in a revision against the final order of allotment which is provided
for by the Act, the order notifying the vacancy could be challenged. It
was held, that the decision in Ganpat Roy (supra), which disapproved C
the ratio in Tirlok Singh (supra) cannot be understood as laying down,
that the failure to challenge the order notifying the vacancy then and
there, would result in the loss of right to the aggrieved person of
challenging the order notifying vacancy itself, in a revision against the
final order of allotment. It was held, Ganpat Roy (supra) had only clarified
D
that even the order notifying the vacancy could be immediately and
independently challenged. It was therefore held, that the High Court had
misunderstood the effect of the decision of this Court in Ganpat Roy
(supra) and had not kept in mind the general principles of law governing
such a question as expounded by the Privy Council and this Court. It
was held, that there was nothing in the Act corresponding either to Section E
97 or to Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 precluding
a challenge in respect of an order which ultimately leads to the final
order. It was further held, that in fact, the person aggrieved by the order
notifying the vacancy can be said to have two options available, either to
challenge the order notifying the vacancy then and there by way of a
F
writ petition or to make a statutory challenge after a final order of
allotment has been made and if he is aggrieved even thereafter, to approach
the High Court. It was further observed, that it would really be a case of
election of remedies.
11. In the present case, the appellant and deceased Shabbir Ahmed,
rightly, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Achal G
Misra (supra), had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.7 (MS) of
2003, challenging the order of vacancy dated 4.6.2003. The learned single
judge of the High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006 after specifically
observing and reproducing paragraph 14 of the judgment of this Court in
the case of Achal Misra (supra) observed thus: H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A “In view of the aforesaid, liberty is given to the petitioner to
challenge the order dated 4th June, 2003 after the final order is
passed under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.”
12. In the light of this, we fail to appreciate, as to how the learned
judge of the High Court in the impugned order, could have made
B observations in paragraph 11 thereof. The learned Judge goes to observe,
that after dismissal of the writ petition there was no occasion for the
said High Court to grant liberty to the respondents to avail remedy of
revision challenging the order of vacancy dated 4.6.2003. It appears,
that the learned judge has missed the last line in the order of the High
Court dated 23.8.2006, which reads thus:
C
“Subject to aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed.”
13. The learned single Judge of the High Court has also failed to
take into consideration that in the order dated 23.8.2006 itself, the learned
judge while disposing of the earlier writ petition had referred to the law
D laid down by this Court in the case of Achal Misra (supra), 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. However, the learned Judge, in the impugned judgment,
has not even referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Achal
E Misra (supra), a relevant part of which has been reproduced in the
earlier order of the said High Court dated 23.8.2006.
14. In the present case, though the appellant and deceased Shabbir
Ahmed could have waited till passing of the final order under Section 16,
they had in fact challenged the vacancy order before the High Court in
F a writ petition. The High Court 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 (supra) vide order
dated 23.8.2006. The learned single judge of the High Court, in the
impugned judgment, while holding that the revision is not tenable under
G Section 18 of the Act, places reliance on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Narayani Devi vs. Mahendra Kr. Tripathi and others4.
It is to be noticed, that the judgment on which reliance is placed by the
single judge of the High Court is an order of one paragraph rendered by
two Judges of this Court. The learned judge has failed in appreciating
4
H (1999) 9 SCC 61
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 79
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
the law as laid down by this Court in Achal Misra (supra), which lays A
down ratio decidendi and is a binding precedent, which was very much
available on the record and a part of which had been reproduced in the
order dated 23.8.2006 in the earlier proceedings between the same parties.
15. By relying on an order of one paragraph passed by two learned
Judges of this Court and ignoring to consider the legal position of law, B
which is ratio decidendi and a binding precedent as laid down by three
learned Judges of this Court in Achal Misra (supra), we find, that the
learned single judge of the High Court has committed a gross error.
16. We are, therefore, of the considered view, that the High Court
has patently erred in holding, that the revision entertained by the District C
Judge against the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 along with the final
order of release dated 31.5.2007 was not tenable. The learned judge 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 learned judge ought to have taken into
consideration, that though the vacancy order was challenged in a writ D
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
of the learned judge, that the High Court in its earlier order dated E
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.
17. That leaves us to the merits of the matter.
18. It will be relevant to refer to Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972. F
“18. Appeal against order of allotment or release:- (1) No appeal
shall lie from any order under section 16 or section 19, whether
made before or after the commencement of this section, but
any person aggrieved by a final order under any of the said
sections may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, G
prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more of
the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that the District Magistrate has exercised a jurisdiction
not vested in him by law;
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A (b) that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise a
jurisdiction vested in him by law;
(c) that the District Magistrate acted in the exercise of his
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The revising authority may confirm or rescind the final
B order made under sub-section (1) or may remand the case to
the District Magistrate for rehearing and pending the revision,
may stay the operation of such order on such terms, if any, as
it thinks fit.
Explanation—The power to rescind the final order under this
C sub-section shall not include the power to pass an allotment
order or to direct the passing of an allotment order in favour of
a person different from the allottee mentioned in the order
under revision.
(3) Where an order under section 16 or section 19 is rescinded,
D the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to
him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which
they would have occupied but for such order or such part
thereof as has been rescinded, and may for that purpose use
or cause to be used such force as may be necessary”.
E 19. It could thus be seen, that the earlier right of an appeal which
was provided under Section 18 had been substituted by a remedy of
revision with the limited grounds of interference. One of the grounds
available is that, the District Magistrate had acted in exercise of his
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
F 20. This Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd.5 had an occasion to consider the scope of
proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This
Court found, that though the word ‘revision’ was not employed in the
said proviso, from the language used therein, the legislative intent was
clear that the power conferred was revisional power. This Court observed
G
thus:
“11. Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the present case
has reassessed and reappraised the evidence afresh to reach a
different finding as though it was exercising appellate jurisdiction.
5
H (1998) 8 SCC 119
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 81
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
No doubt even while exercising revisional jurisdiction, a reappraisal A
of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose
to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding
court is wholly unreasonable…..”
It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that the High Court
while exercising the revisional powers under the Delhi Rent Control B
Act, 1958 though could not reassess and reappraise the evidence, as if it
was exercising appellate jurisdiction, however, it was empowered to
reappraise the evidence for the limited purpose so as to ascertain whether
the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable.
21. Again in the case of Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Rani and C
others6, this Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid powers
under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This Court observed thus:
“12. It is no doubt true that the scope of a revision petition under
Section 25-B(8) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control Act is a very
limited one, but even so in examining the legality or propriety of D
the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the High Court could
examine the facts available in order to find out whether he had
correctly or on a firm legal basis approached the matters on record
to decide the case. Pure findings of fact may not be open to be
interfered with, but (sic if) in a given case, the finding of fact is
given on a wrong premise of law, certainly it would be open to the E
revisional court to interfere with such a matter…….”
It was thus held, that though the scope of revisional powers of
the High Court was very limited one, but even so in examining the legality
or propriety of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the High
Court could examine the facts available in order, to find out whether he F
had correctly or on a firm legal basis approached the matters on record
to decide the case. It has also been held, that pure findings of fact may
not be open to be interfered with, but in a given case, if the finding of
fact is given on a wrong premise of law, it would be open to the revisional
court to interfere with the same. G
22. In the case of Harshavardhan Chokkani vs. Bhupendra
N. Patel and others7, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope
of revisional power under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings
6
(1999) 1 SCC 141
7
(2002) 3 SCC 626 H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. This Court observed
thus:
“7. There can be no controversy about the position that the power
of the High Court under Section 22 of the Act is wider than the
power under Section 115 CPC. Nonetheless, the High Court is
B exercising the revisional power which in its very nature is a
truncated power. The width of the powers of the revisional court
cannot be equated with the powers of the appellate court. In
examining the legality and the propriety of the order under
challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether
it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent
C 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. It is only in such situations that interference by the
High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere
D possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise
of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that
none of the aforementioned reasons exist in this case to justify
interference by the High Court.”
23. This Court thus held, that the interference in revisional powers
E would be permitted only if the High Court finds that the order impugned
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.
F 24. Lastly, the Constitution Bench of this court in the case of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh8 had
an occasion to consider the scope of revisional powers as contained in
the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, T.N. Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Haryana Urban (Control of
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The Court observed thus:
G
“43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control
Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because
on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the
8
H (2014) 9 SCC 78
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 83
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the A
evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these
Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the
court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from
any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority
below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of
B
the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or
misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed
to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to
correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law.
In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside C
the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court
is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or
propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated
above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness,
legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the
D
High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to
reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different
finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated
with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a
court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be
satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine E
whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural
illegality or irregularity.”
It can thus be seen, that the Constitution Bench has settled the
position, that the revisional power does not entitle the High Court to
interfere with the finding of the fact recorded by the first appellate court/ F
first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its
view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or
examination of the evidence is confined to find out as to whether the
finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to
law and does not suffer from any error of law. It has been held, that a
finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has G
been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such
finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly
erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of
justice, in such a case, it is open to correction because it is not treated as
a finding according to law. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A 25. No doubt, that the observations in the aforesaid cases deal
with the revisional powers to be exercised by the High Court under the
special statute. This Court has observed, that 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
B
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. It has been held, that 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.
C 26. The revisional powers conferred upon the District Judge under
the U.P. Act, 1972 are almost analogous with the revisional powers of
the High Court that have been interpreted by this Court in the aforesaid
judgments. We find, that the said principles can be aptly made applicable
to the revisional powers of the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972.
D If the said principles are applied to the facts of the present case, it could
be seen, that the learned District Judge was fully justified in interfering
with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer.
27. It will be relevant to reproduce a part of the judgment and
order passed by the learned District Judge while allowing the revision
E filed by the present appellant and late Shabbir Ahmed.
“The law on the point is very clear. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Harish Tandon Vs. A.D.M. Allahabad ARC 1995(1) 220 has
defined the scope of Section 12(1)(b) – Deemed vacancy. The
Hon’ble Court has held that the words “allowed” and “occupy”
F are significant. The extract of Head Note ‘D’ (para 18) of the
judgment is reproduced below for ready reference.
“Sub-Section (1)(b) of Section 12 says that a landlord or tenant of
a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building
or a part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person
G who is not a member of his family.
The words ‘allowed’ and ‘occupy’ are significant. The landlord
or the tenant, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have ceased
to occupy the building only if he has allowed it to be occupied by
any person who is not a member of his family. The words “allowed
to be occupied” indicate that the possession of such building has
H
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 85
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
been given to a person who is not a member of the family. It shall A
not be attracted when any person who is not a member of the
family resides in such building either along with landlord or the
original tenant. If the landlord or the tenant allows any person,
who is not a member of the family within the meaning of the Act
to occupy the premises, with the object that such person shall
B
occupy such premises in his own rights, in that event, clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall be attracted?
Averting to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the inspection note on the file is important. The R.C.I. made
surprise inspection on 15-8-1999 and found Shabir Ahmed,
Smt. Shafikan, Naseema, Shabnam and Nasim present in the C
premises. It was also told to him that Rashid Ahmed has gone to
his village. It is also noted in the inspection note that in the given
premises, Sri Rashid himself, Sri Inam, s/o Rashid along with his
wife and children, Sri Shabir Ahmed along with his wife
Smt. Shafikan, daughter and Sri Ayub, Naseema and Nasim were D
residing in the property. It is worthy to note that Sri Inam is the
son of Rashid who is said to be the tenant even according to
landlord. The persons named in the inspection report are either
the family members of tenant Rashid or the family members of
his brother Akbar. Admittedly except the family member of Rashid
or Akbar no other person was found residing in the property in E
question. In this perspective, the factum of deemed vacancy is to
be seen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many words has held
that the words “allowed to be occupied” indicate that the possession
of such building has been given to a person who is not a family
member of the tenant. It shall not be attracted when any person F
who is not a member of family of the tenant reside in such building
either along with landlord or the original tenant meaning thereby if
any person other than the family member occupies such premises
in his own right, in that event, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 12 shall be attracted and not otherwise. Here in the present
case even according to spot inspection, the family member of G
Rashid who was the original tenant was found residing therein.
The other members even if not their family members were found
residing along with the family members of the original tenant and
not in their own exclusive right. Therefore, the vacancy could not
have been declared in such eventuality.” H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A 28. It could be seen, from the judgment and order of the District
Judge, that the District Judge has considered the words “allowed to be
occupied” in Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 as interpreted by this
Court in the case of Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate,
Allahabad, U.P. and others9. This Court in Harish Tandon (supra),
while construing the words “allowed to be occupied” as appearing in
B
Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972, 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
C 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.
29. A perusal of the inspection report clearly established, that the
D 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.
E Act, 1972 was totally contrary to the law as interpreted by this Court in
the case of Harish Tandon (supra). 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
F material irregularity. In that view of the matter, the learned District Judge
was wholly justified in interfering with the order impugned before him
and reversing the same.
30. Though the District Judge as well as the High Court has also
gone on the issue of Section 14, we do not propose to go into the said
G aspect of the matter, inasmuch as, we find, that the present appeal
deserves to be allowed on the aforesaid grounds.
31. We find, that the learned single judge of the High Court has
also erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned
9
H (1995) 1 SCC 537
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. 87
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
District Judge while exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court under A
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
32. 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 B
within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It
has been held, that 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. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a catena of judgments
of this Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde C
& Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 10, Bathutmal
Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta & Anr.11, M/s India Pipe
Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr.12, Ganpat Ladha v.
Sashikant Vishnu Shinde13, Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha &
Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr.14, Chandavarkar Sita D
Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram15, Venkatlal G. Pittie and another
vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd.16, State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors.17,
State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias
Afshan Guru and others 18, Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash 19,
Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through
LRs. and others20, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms.) and others vs. Ulhas E
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others21.
33. In the present case, we are of the considered view, that the
approach of the High Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India was totally erroneous. The learned District
Judge while exercising his power under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972 F
10
(1960) 1 SCR 890
11
(1975) 1 SCC 858
12
(1977) 4 SCC 587
13
(1978) 2 SCC 573
14
(1982) 3 SCC 514 G
15
(1986) 4 SCC 447
16
(1987) 3 SCC 558
17
(2001) 1 SCC 4
18
(2003) 6 SCC 641
19
(2004) 3 SCC 682
20
(2008) 9 SCC 1
21
(2010) 1 SCC 217 H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A 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 (supra), 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. The High Court totally misinterpreting the order
B
passed by the earlier learned judge in Writ Petition No.7(MS) of 2003
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 by the bench of three learned judges
of this Court in Achal Misra (supra), a relevant part of which was
C reproduced by the High Court in its earlier order dated 23.8.2006. The
learned judge ignoring Achal Misra (supra), which is a binding precedent,
relies on an order of one paragraph of the two learned judges of this
Court while holding that the revision was not maintainable. We, therefore,
are of the considered view, that the exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Court under Article 227 in the present case was patently unwarranted
D
and unjustified.
34. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High
Court dated 26.10.2017 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no
order as to costs.
E
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "vacancy order"Sign in to search