Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate court; its judgment is set aside and the appellate court's judgment is restored.

Summary

The landlord, Ranjeet Singh, sought eviction of his tenant, Ravi Prakash, on the grounds of bonafide requirement for his own fertilizer business and the need to reconstruct the dilapidated shop after a municipal demolition notice. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed eviction. The tenant filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, restoring the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising certiorari and re‑appreciating evidence, functions reserved for an appellate court, and therefore could not overturn the appellate court's judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the appellate court’s judgment, and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises within four months upon furnishing the usual undertaking.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can set aside an appellate court's judgment in an eviction suit under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court may re‑appreciate evidence and correct findings of an appellate court in such matters.
Whether the eviction grounds under Section 21(a) and (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, are valid.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 226, s. 227

Subjects

evictionbonafide requirementreconstructiondilapidated premiseswrit jurisdictioncertiorariArticle 226Article 227appellate jurisdictionUttar Pradesh Buildings Act

Judgment

..
A RANJEET SINGH -4.
v.
RA VI PRAKASH

MARCH 18, 2004

B [R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:

Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
c 1972; Section 21(/)(a) & (b)/Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 226 and
227:

Suit for eviction of suit premises on ground of bonafide requirement
and for reconstruction-Municipality had also issued notice for its demolition
as it was in dilapidated condition-Dismissed by trial Court-Appeal allowed
D by Appellate Court-Challenge to-High Court set aside the judgment of the
Appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court-On appeal, Held: The
High Court acted like an Appellate Court, which is nol permissible in exercise y·

of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226122 7-Hence, the High Court judgment
set aside and Appellate Court judgment restored
E
Appellant-landlord initiated eviction proceedings against respondent-
tenant on grounds of bonajide requirement and for re-construction of the
premises in question, a shop, as it was in dilapidated condition and that
the Municipality had already issued a notice for its demolition. Trial Court
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal, which was
F allowed by the Appellate Court. The tenant preferred a writ petition. _.
Single Judge of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate
Court and restored that of the trial Court. Hence the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

G HELD: The High Court has 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 in correcting
..
the judgment of the Appellate Court. On.its own showing, the High Court "
H 250
RAN.IEET SINGH v. RAVI PRAKASH [LAHOTI. .I.] 251

has acted like an Appellate Court which was not permissible for it to do A
under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. The approach of the
High Court cannot be countenanced. Hence, the judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the Appellate Court is restored.
[252-D; G-H; 253-A)

Surya Dev Raj v. Ram Chander Raj and Ors., [20031 6 SCC 675, relied B
on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I685 of2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated I0.7.2001 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 24448 of 1997. C
Ms. V. Mahana for the Appellant.

Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.

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) E
of sub-section (I) of Section 2 I 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 F.
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 way. 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.
G
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 H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.

C 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 Comt 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
D 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 v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., [2003] 6 SCC 675,
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
RANJEET SINGH v. RAVI PRAKASH [LAHOTL .1.] 253

The approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced. The appeal A
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
withfo a period of 4 weeks from today. No order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed. B