Holding

The High Court cannot disturb the appellate authority’s factual findings; the landlords’ bona‑fide requirement was established and the eviction order is restored.

Summary

The landlords, owners of a shop in Dehradun, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide requirement to run a readymade garment business by the retired husband Matloob Ahmad and his daughter Kum Faraha, an advocate. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application, deeming the claim not genuine and noting the landlords' affluent status; the appellate authority reversed, finding the requirement bona‑fide and that the tenant had made no effort to find alternative premises. The High Court set aside the appellate order, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in re‑appreciating the factual findings of the appellate authority, affirmed that the landlords' requirement was genuine, and restored the eviction order. The Court also reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is not a substitute for an appellate review and should not disturb factual findings unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act to the landlords' claim of bona‑fide requirement.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the appellate authority under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the landlords' socio‑economic status and lack of prior experience in the garment business negate a bona‑fide requirement.
Whether the tenant's comparative hardship and alleged lack of alternative accommodation preclude eviction.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21(1)(a), s. 22

Subjects

evictionbona fide requirementrent controlUttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Actsupervisory jurisdictionArticles 226 and 227comparative hardshiplandlord‑tenant dispute

Judgment

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 353
')
'
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. A
v.
TILAK RAJ BAJAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8067 of 2004)
-; B
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
1
' [C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,
JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, c
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s. 21(1)(a) - Eviction of shop
- Sought on the ground of bonafide requirement for carrying
on business - Denied by prescribed authority- Allowed by
appellate authority- High Court in writ petition denying the
same - On appeal, held: Landlord was entitled to eviction -
-4
D
He established his bonafide requirement - Experience in the
business in question and tl1e high living standard of the
landlord were not relevant for determining his requirement of
the premises - Tenant had also failed to establish that no
alternative accommodation was available to him - Hence
cannot be said that he would suffer greater hardship - Rent E
control and Eviction.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 -
Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Held: Though powers under
" ...,, the provisions are very wide, but should be exercised within F
limits of law - Power being supervisory in nature, the court
should not act as a court of appeal or a court of error - The
power should be exercised most sparingly only in order to
keep the subordinate court and inferior Tribunals within the
limit of law.
G
Appellant-landlords had let out the property in
,... question (shop) to the predecessor of the respondent-
tenants. They filed a suit for possession in respect of the
property. During pendency thereof, they filed an
353 H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A application before Prescribed Authority u/s, 21 (1 )(a) of
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972, for eviction of the shop on the ground
of bonafide requirement. The plea was that the shop was
required for carrying on business of readymade garments
B by the husband of applicant No. 6 with his daughter, after
his retirement from Government service. Prescribed
Authority dismissed the application on the grounds that
the need could not have been said to be bonafide because
neither husband of applicant No. 6 nor his daughter had
C any experience in the business of readymade garments;
that they did not need to start the business as they
belonged to a high status family living in high standard;
and that tenant would suffer greater hardship than the
landlord, if eviction order is passed.
D Appellate authority ordered eviction of the property,
holding that the same was genuinely required by
husband of applicant No. 6 for starting the business as
he had retired from service and also for his daughter to
set up an office of advocate, who during the pendency of
E the litigation, had become a practicing lawyer; and that
tenant could not be said to suffer greater hardship than
the landlord because he made no attempt to get alternative
accommodation.
High Court allowed the writ petition, denying
F eviction. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the facts and circumstances in
their entirety and on the findings recorded by the appellate
G authority, High Court was not right in interfering with the
order pat:sed by the appellate authority and in dismissing
the application of the landlords. [Para 50] [372-A]
1.2 The prescribed authority can undoubtedly decide
whether the need or requirement of landlords was or was
H
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 355
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

not bona fide. It can record a finding against the landlords A
if such requirement is not proved. But the authority
cannot decline the prayer of the landlords on the ground
that they belonged to upper class society having facilities
of car, etc. Similarly, the Prescribed Authority was wrong
in commenting on the experience of the landlords in B
business of readymade garments. Again, the authority
went wrong in stating that if the applicants wanted to do
business in readymade garments, they needed 'an office'
and place of godown for preparation of readymade
garments to be exported. The appellate authority, c
therefore, rightly set aside the said finding describing the
ground weighed with the authority as 'flimsy'. [Paras 28
and 29] [365 C-F]
1.3 Even if the tenant was right in submitting that the
--4 landlords belonged to a higher strata of society, it did not D
mean that all throughout his life after retirement, husband
of applicant No.6 should not do any work. If he wanted to
get himself engaged in doing some business, it could
not be held that he would not be entitled to possession
of property for doing business since he was rich and E
even without doing any business, he could maintain
himself. A finding as to bona fide requirement for doing
readymade business has been expressly recorded by
the appellate authority. The said finding was a finding of
·-~ fact. Neither it could have been interfered with, nor could F
it have been set aside by the writ court. The High Court
by a cryptic order, without disturbing the said finding
. which was based on appreciation of evidence, set aside
the order of eviction against the tenant. [Paras 30 and 44]
[365 H, 366 A-8] [370-F]
G
1.4 Regarding comparative hardship, nothing has
~ been stated by the tenant as to whether any attempt has
been made by him to get alternative accommodation and
he failed to get such accommodation. In the circumstances,
the appellate authority was right in observing that there H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A was no evidence to show that no shop was available to
the tenant. It is quite possible, that the tenant might have
to pay more rent. But that would not preclude the landlords
from getting possession of the suit-shop once they had
proved genuine need of the property. [Para 48] [371 D-E]
B 2. Though powers of a High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are very wide and
extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction,
such powers must be exercised within the limits of law.
c The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does
not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can
neither review nor re-appreciate, nor reweigh the evidence
upon which determination of a subordinate Court or
inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors
D of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision .-
for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are
required to be exercised most sparingly and only in
appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts
and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law. [Para 32]
E [366 D-F]
Chundavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Asha/ata S. Guram,
1986 (4) SCC 447; Babhutmal Raichand Oswa/ v. Laxmibai
R. Tarta and Ant:, 1975 (1) SCC 858; State of Maharashtra v.
Mi/ind, 2001 (1) SCC 4; State v. Navjot Sandhu 2003 (6)
F SCC 641; Om Prakash and Ors. v. Sunhari Devi (Smt.) and
,, .
Ors. 1993 (2) SCC 397; Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, 2004
(3) sec 682 - relied on.
Mst. Bega Begum and Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan (dead)
by L.Rs. and Ors. 1979 (1) SCC 273 - referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
1986 (4) sec 447 Relied on. Para 33
1975 (1) sec 858 Relied on. Para 34
H 2001 (1) sec 4 Relied on. Para 35
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 357
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2003 (6) sec 641 Relied on. Para 36 A
1993 (2) sec 397 Relied on. Para 38
2004 (3) sec 682 Relied on. Para 41
1979 (1) sec 213 Referred to. Para 42

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8067 B
of 2004
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2002 of
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 2067 (Ml
S) of 2001 C
R. Chandrachud and K.R. Sasiprabhu for the Appellants.
Nikhil Nayyar and TVS Raghavendra Sreyan (Mis.
Arputham, Aruna & Co.) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was deliverer\ by D
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the
landlords against the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Uttaranchal on September 2;:;, 2002 in Writ Petition
No. 2057 (MIS) of 2001. By the impugned order, a Single Judge E
of the High Court of Uttaranchal reversed an order of eviction
passed by the Additional District Judge Ill (FTC), Dehradun
(Appellate Authority), dated May 25. 2001 in Rent Control
Appeal No. 165 of 1995 and restored the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority (First Additional Civil Judge, Senior
Division), Dehradun dated November 18, 1995 in P.A. Case F
No. 53 of 1989 by which the application of the landlords for
eviction of respondent-tenant came to be dismissed.
2. For appreciating the controversy in the present appeal,
few relevant facts may be noted. G
3. The appellants are landlords having Shop No.2 in
Building No. 43 situated on Gandhi Road in the city of Dehradun.
The respondents are heirs of one Prakash Chand. Initially, the
property was let out to Prakash Chand, grandfather of the
respondents who are heirs and legal representatives of said H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
"
A. Prakash Chand. The tenancy was created in 1956 at a monthly
rent of Rs.18. 75 paise per month which was subsequently
raised to Rs.25.50 paise.

4. It appears that the landlords served notice on October
3, 1988 to the tenant terminating his tenancy. A suit for
B possession was thereafter instituted being Eviction Suit No. 4
of 1989 titled Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Prakash Chand in
the Small Causes Court, Dehradun and the matter was sub-
judice. During the pendency of the suit, landlords made an
application to the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a)
c of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Ev:ction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to a;; 'the Act') for
possessiori of the suit shop on the ground that the landlords
required the shop bona fide for carrying on business by Matloob
Ahmad, husband of Smt. Kishwar Ahmad-applicant Nc.6 with
D Kum. Fara:;a Matloob, daughter of Smt. Kishwar Ahmad and
Matloob Ahmad for running business in readyrnade garments.
.. -
5. It was the case of the landlords that Matloob Ahmad,
hu:>iland of Smt. Kishwar Ahmad who was vnrking in C.D.
Account Service, was due to retire within a short period. He
E had no any other business of his own. Smt. K:shwar Ahmad,
therefore, wanted to get possession of suit shop so that her
husband Matloob Ahmad could carry on business in readymade
garments with her daughter Kum. Faraha Matloob.

F 6. The tenant Prakash Chand filed a written statement y ,
controverting the facts stated and averments made in the
application and contested the claim of the landlords. It was
stated that landlords were having huge property in Dehradun.
They were enjoying high status and were a 'reputed family' in
the city. They were very rich and having business in timber
G
wood. They did not require the shop for doing business in
readymade garments. Matloob Ahmad was in Government
service and had not retired. It was also contended that even
after retirement, he would not do business in readymade
garments. Neither Matloob Ahmad nor Kum. Faraha Matloob
H
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 359
~ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

had any experience in the business of readymade garments A
and on that ground also, the claim was not well founded.
Moreover, both Smt. Kishwar Ahmad and Kum. Faraha Matloob
were pardanasin ladies. For that reason also, they could not
come in public and could not do any business. The application
-1 was filed only with a view to get the tenant evicted. Moreover, B
one suit which had already been instituted for getting possession
on the ground that the property was in dilapidated condition
and was required repairing, was pending and hence an
application under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable.
It was stated that the tenant was very poor having a grocery c
shop. He was doing busin,ess since last about forty years. The
income from the grocery shop run by the tenant from the suit
shop was the only means of income for the entire family
consisting of nine members. If eviction order is passed against
the tenant, he would be deprived of livelihood and his family
D
-4 would starve. It was, therefore, submitted that the application
was liable to be dismissed.
7. The PrescribedA,ufhority, on the basis of the pleadings
of the parties, considered the rival claims and perused the
evidence led by both the sides. As far as maintainability of the E
application is concerned, it' was held that such application was
tenable. The ground put forward by the landlords in the
application under Section· 21 was totally different, distinct and
independent of the suit filed by the landlords earlier and hence
'>--~
the application was not liable to be dismissed on that ground. F
It was also held that it could not be contended that pardanasin
lady/ladies cannot do business. No such provision of law was
brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority so as to compel
the Authority to dismiss the application on that count. Hence,
even that ground also was not well founded for dismissing the
G
application.
8. The Authority, however, observed that neither Matloob
... Ahmad nor Kum. Faraha Matloob had any experience in doing
business in readymade garments. The Authority noted that Kum.
Faraha had obtained B.A. degree but she had no experience H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A in readymade garments. Nor Matloob Ahmad who was to retire,
had any such expertise. The Authority, therefore, held that in
absence of such experience, requiremeni pleaded by the
landlords could not be said to be bona fide or genuine. The
Authority also held that if the landlords wanted to do business
B in readymade garments, they would require an office room.
They would also require sufficient space for preparation of
readymade garments and godown for export of garments. In
absence of such accommodation, it could not be said that the
requirement was bona fide. The Authority proceeded to observe
c that family of the landlords was reputed family having high status
in the society and they were living in high standard, doing
business in timber wood and enjoying facilities of car, scooter,
telephone, etc. It, therefore, could not be said that they were
interested in doing business in readymade garments.

D 9. On the other hand, according to the Authority, tenant
was in possession of the shop since about forty years wherein "-
he was doing business in grocery articles. The entire family of
the tenant was earning livelihood from the income of the said
shop. Hence, even on the ground of comparative hardship, it
E was the tenant who would suffer greater hardship than the
landlords. In view of the above findings, the Prescribed Authority
dismissed the application for eviction of the tenant.

10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority, the landlords preferred an appeal before
F the appellate authority. The Additional District Judge who heard ,.. J

the appeal, again appreciated the evidence on record. The
learned Judge held that the Prescribed Authority had rejected
the application on 'flimsy' ground. The Authority did not
appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective.
G The learned Judge noted that Matloob Ahmad, husband of
applicant No.6 had already retired from service on December
31, 1993 after office hours. Obviously, therefore, applicant No.6
was right in praying for possession of shop for bona fide
requirement of her husband as he yvas to do work and was not
H doing any other business. The learned Judge also noted that
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 361
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

for doing business in readymade garments, no 'expertise' was A
necessary and the Prescribed Authority was wholly wrong in
rejecting the claim of the applicants on the ground that Matloob
Ahmad was not 'expert' in the said business. The learned Judge
also noted that by the time the matter came up for hearing,
Kum. Faraha Matloob who had acquired B.A. degree, had also B
obtained Law degree and had become an advocate. She was
practising in Civil Court at Dehradun and she was in need of an
office room. The lower appellate Court, therefore, held that the
requirement of landlords of the suit shop was bona fide. A part
of it was required for the purpose of doing business in C
readymade garments by Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant
No.6 and a part of it was required by Kum. Faraha Matloob for
running an office as an advocate. According to the appellate
Court, therefore, bona fide requirement of the landlords was
proved.
D
11. Regarding comparative hardship, the appellate Court
noted that no attempt whatsoever had been made by the tenant
for getting alternative accommodation and hence it could not
be said that if the order of eviction would be passed and
application of landlords would be allowed, greater hardship E·
would be caused to the tenant. Accordingly, an order passed
by the Prescribed Authority was set aside and direction for
eviction of tenant was issued.
12. The said order was challenged by the tenant by filing
a writ petition in the High Court of Uttaranchal under Articles F
226 and 227 of the Constitution. A Single Judge of the High
Court, by a brief order, allowed the writ petition, set aside the
decision of the appellate authority and dismissed the application
filed by the landlords. The said order is challenged by the
landlords in the present proceedings. G
13. On November 22, 2004, leave was granted and final
hearing of the appeal was fixed in the year 2005. The matter,
however, could not be heard. An application for early hearing
was filed by the appellants and on March 28, 2008, the Bench H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India directed the
Registry to place the matter for final hearing in summer vacation.
That is how the matter was placed before us.

14. We have heard learned advocates for the parties.

B 15. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously
contended that the High Court was wholly wrong in interfering
with findings of fact recorded by the appellate Court. According
to the counsel, the High Court was exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution and it was not open to the
c Court to enter into questions of fact or mixed questions of law
and fact. After appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate
Court held that bona fide requirement of landlords was proved.
A finding was recorded that no greater hardship would be
caused to the tenant if an order of eviction would be passed
against the tenant. The findings were findings of fact and they
0
ought to have been accepted by a writ Court as final.
16. The counsel also contended that even though Kum.
Faraha was selected and appointed in Judiciary, bona fide
requirement of Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No.6,
E who had retired in 1993 remained for running business in
readymade garments. A clear cut and unequivocal finding was
recorded by the appellate authority that the said requirement
was proved. Not only the High Court had no jurisdiction to
interfere with the said finding, in fact, the said finding has not
F been disturbed. Once the finding in favour of the landlords had
been recorded, it could not be said that the requirement of the
landlords was not bona fide.
17. As to comparative hardship, the appellate authority
expressly stated that no attempt whatsoever had been made
G by the tenant from which it can be shown that there was an
attempt by him to get alternative accommodation but he could
not get such accommodation. On the contrary, according to the
counsel, the tenant had left Dehradun and settled down in Delhi.
18. The counsel also submitted that crucial date for the
H
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 363
..,., (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

purpose of deciding requirement of the landlord is the date of A
institution of suit or proceeding and not the date when final
order is passed by a Court or Authority. In the present case, the
date on which an application under Section 21 of the Act was
filed, the landlords needed the shop for bona fide requirement.
Subsequent events could not deprive them from getting B
possession of the suit shop.
19. On all these grounds, it was submitted that the order
passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside by restoring
the order of the appellant authority and by confirming the order
of possession granted by the Additional District Judge, c
Dehradun ..
20. The learned counsel for the tenant, on the other hand,
0

supported the order passed by the High Court. He submitted
that when the Prescribed Authority dismissed the application
_. D
~
filed by the landlords and the appellate authority allowed such
application, the High Court was fully justified in entering into the
findings recorded by the appellate authority.
21. He also submitted that subsequent events were
required to be considered. In view of the fact that Kum. Farah E
was selected by the Public Service Commission and was
appointed as a Judge, the so called requirement as a practising
advocate and having an office for that purpose did not survive.
The said development was a relevant consideration and the
l .,._,,.:.
- High Court was right in setting aside the order of eviction. Even F
otherwise, as per settled law, the need and necessity of the
landlord for getting possession of property must continue to
remain till the proceedings are finalized.
22. The trail Court, submitted the learned counsel, was
right in observing that neither MatloobAhmad nor Kum. Faraha G
had experience in business in readymade garments and in
absence of expertise, no order of eviction could be passed
against the tenant. According to the counsel, the tenant is in
possession of the shop since last fifty years. It was true that the
tenant had shifted from Dehradun to Delhi but it was really of a H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A temporary nature. In no way, it would suggest that the tenant
was not in need of the shop or that he had permanently shifted
to any other place. In fact, the business is going on in the suit-
shop.
23. The counsel also submitted that the Prescribed
8 Authority was right in observing that the landlords belonged to
high strata of society having business in timber wood. Even in
early 1990s, they were having facilities of car, scooter,
telephone, etc. Obviously, they would not do business in
readymade garments.
c
24. The counsel urged that taking into consideration all
these facts, the Prescribed Authority refused to make an order
of eviction against the tenant. The said finding ought not to
have been disturbed by the appellate Court and the High Court
was, therefore, compelled to interfere with the order passed by
0
the appellate authority. It was, therefore, submitted that the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in ou:
opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
E 26. So far as the larger question, namely, whether
subsequent events can be taken into consideration by an
appellate, revisional or writ Court, we express no opinion in
view of the fact that the appeal can be decided without entering
into the said controversy. We may, however, note that learned
F counsel for both the sides referred to leading decisions of this
Court. In some of the cases, the Court held that the crucial date
for deciding requirement of a landlord is the date of institution
of suiUproceeding. In other cases, however, a contrary view
has been taken. There is thus a cleavage of opinion on that
G vexed issue. We leave the matter there.
27. On merits, in our judgment, the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants is well founded that the
Prescribed Authority was wrong in dismissing the application
H filed by the landlords. We had already observed that the
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 365
., (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.)

Prescribed Authority negatived the contention of the tenant that A
the application was not maintainable. It, therefore, entered into
the merits of the matter and decided it against the landlords. It
observed that applicant No.6 hailed from "a reputed family of
Dehradun" and "they had a very big business of timber wood".
It also noted that applicant No.6 had been enjoying the facilities B
of car, scooter, telephone, etc.

28. In our opinion, the grievance voiced by the learned
counsel for the appellants is well founded that the above grounds
and reasons were irrelevant and extraneous so far as the
requirement of the landlords was concerned. The authority can c
undoubtedly decide whether the need or requirement of landlords
was or was not bona fide. It can record a finding against the
landlords if such requirement is not proved. But the authority
cannot decline the prayer of the landlords on the ground that
they belonged to upper class society having facilities of car, D
. ~
etc. Similarly, the Prescribed Authority was wrong in commenting
on the experience of the landlords in business of readymade
garments. Again, the authority went wrong in stating that if the
applicants wanted to do business in readymade garments, they
needed 'an office' and place of godown for preparation of E
readymade garments to be exported.

29. The complaint of the learned counsel forthe landlords
is that the authority was wholly wrong in holding that for doing
business in readymade garments, there must- be need and
~ ... necessity of office or place for preparation of garments or F
godown. It was equally wrong in coming to the conclusion that
for such business 'technical education' was necessary. The
appellant authority, therefore, rightly set aside the said finding
describing the ground weighed with the authority as 'flimsy'.
G
30. The counsel is also right in submitting that admittedly,
Matloob Ahmad had retired from service. Even if the tenant

• was right in submitting that the landlords belonged to a higher
strata of society, it did not mean that all throughout his life after
retirement, Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No.6 should
H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
,.

A not do any work. If he wanted to get himself engaged in doing
some business, it could not be held that he would not be entitled
to possession of property for doing business since he was rich
and even without doing any business, he could maintain himself.
A finding as to bona fide requirement for doing readymade
B business by Matloob Ahmad has been expressly recorded by ~-
the appellant authority. The said finding was a finding of fact.
Neither it could have been interfered with, nor it has been set
aside by the writ court. In view of the above position, the High
Court was wrong in allowing the writ petition.
c 31. As observed earlier, statutory remedy has been
provided under the Act against an order passed by the
Prescribed Authority by filing an appeal bP.fore the District Judge
(Section 22). There is no further remedy 1mder the Act. The
tenant, in the circumstances, approached the High Court by
D filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
32. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226
. ,

and 227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and
Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within
E the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High
Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It
can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence
upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior
Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even
F of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior
Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised
" .
most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep
the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of
law.
G
33. In Chundavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S.
Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, this Court stated;

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or
flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not
H for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 367
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

Constitution to interfere. If there is evidence on record on A
which a finding can be arrived at and if the court has not
misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise
of the power under Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution, the High Court should refrain from interfering
with such findings made by the appropriate authorities". B
34. Even prior to Chundavarkar, in Babhutmal Raichand
Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta & Anr., (1975) 1 SCC 858, dealing
with supervisory power of a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution, Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated;
c
"If an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of
the record, cannot be corrected by means of a writ of
certiorari it should follow a fortiori that it is not subject to
correction by the High Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227. The power of
0
superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to
correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do
in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. The
High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal
when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal E
and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal
final on facts".

(emphasis supplied)
35. In State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind, (2001) 1 SCC 4, F
this Court observed;
"The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, while exercising the power of judicial
review against an order of inferior Tribunal being G
supervisory and not appellate, the High Court would be
justified in interfering with the conclusion of the tribunal,
only when it records a finding that the inferior Tribunal's
conclusion is based upon exclusion of some admissible
evidence or consideration of some inadmissible evidence
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A or the inferior Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all or that the
finding is such, which no reasonable man could arrive at,
on the materials on record".

36. In State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641, this
Court reiterated;
B ~-

"Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India
gives the High Court the power of superintendence over
all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot
c be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature.
The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the
subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and
m seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article
227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice.
They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory
D
order. However the power under Article 227 is a
'" ~
discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an
order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the
High Court itself does not in terms pu;port to exercise any
such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power
E of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be
exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts
and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not
to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the
exercise of revisional powers it would require very
F exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under ~ "
Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of
superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory
law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227
could not be exercised 'as the cloak of an appeal in
G disguise'."
(emphasis supplied)

37. While dealing with petitions under the present statute, .
the above principles have been followed.
H
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 369
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

38. In Om Prakash & Ors. v. Sunhari Devi (Smt.) & Ors., A
(1993) 2 sec 397, a similar question came up for consideration
before this Court. There an application under Section 21 ((1 )(a)
of the present Act was filed by the landlords against the tenants
on the ground that they bona fide required the tenanted premises,
·--i a shop, for their own use. The Prescribed Authority dismissed B
the eviction petition holding that the applicants' requirement
was not bona fide and greater hardship would be caused to the
tenants than to the landlords. The landlords filed an appeal and
the appellate authority allowed the same holding that the
requirement of the landlords was genuine and bona fide. It also c
recorded a finding in favour of the landlords on the question of
comparative hardship.
39. The High Court of Allahabad in a petition by the tenants,
set aside the finding recorded by the appellate authority and
dismissed the eviction application. Aggrieved landlords D
.,._ ...
approached this Court.
40. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order passed by
the High Court and restoring that of the appellate authority, this
Court held that even in second appeal, the High Court should
restrict itself to question of law. It was all the more so, in a writ E
petition. When findings were recorded by the appellate authority,
the High Court was wrong in interfering with the said findings and
in setting aside the order of eviction, observed this Court.
41. In Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, (2004) 3 SCC F
"' .'"(
682, again this Court while interpreting the provisions of the Act
in question, held that the High Court, while exercising powers
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, cannot act like
an appellate Court and re-appreciate or revaluate the evidence
while exercising certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction. Only a
G
patent error which did not require establishment by lengthy and
complicated arguments or by long drawn process of reasoning
... is amenable to certiorari jurisdiction. If two opinions were
reasonably possible, the finding arrived at one way or the other
by the appellate authority, cannot be disturbed.
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 42. In Mst. Bega Begum & Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan
(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1979) 1 SCC 273, this Court held that
rent control laws must be construed reasonably. They should
be interpreted in such a way as to achieve the object of enabling
landlord to evict tenant where the statute grants such right in
B favour of landlord. ~-

43. Dealing with the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and
Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, the Court observed that
'reasonable requirement' undoubtedly postulates that there must
be an element of 'need' as opposed to a mere 'desire' or
c 'wish'. The distinction between 'desire' and 'need' should
doubtless be kept in mind. That does not, however, mean that
even a genuine need sho11ld be treated as nothing more than
a desire or wish. The connotation 'need' or the word
'requirement' should not be artificially expanded nor its language
D so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or
extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction.
....
Such construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act,
which affords facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on
certain specified grounds.
E 44. In the case on hand, a finding had been recorded by
the appellate authority that requirement of the landlords for doing
business by Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No.6 was
bona fide and genuine. Thus, the requirement of the landlords
was established. The said finding stands today. The High Court
F by a cryptic order, without disturbing the said finding which was ,. .
based on appreciation of evidence, set aside the order of
eviction against the tenant, inter alia, observing that Matloob
Ahmad was a 'retired person' and was getting pension and
was living in his village at a distance of five kilometers from
G Dehradun. It is no doubt true that the tenancy was created before
about fifty years but that should not be a ground for depriving
the landlord for doing business if the requirement of the landlord
' '

is bona fide and reasonable. •
45. The learned counsel for the landlords also stated that
H
.
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 371
~
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

in May 2001, the order of eviction was passed by the Additional A
District Judge, Dehradun and the appeal was allowed. When
the said order was challenged by the tenant in the High Court,
the High Court asked the tenant to inform the Court as to when
they would vacate the premises.
·-1
46. The order passed by the High Court on August 24, B
2001 reads as under;

"Put up on 7-9-2001. On that day the petitioners shall
inform this Court as to when they are going to vacate the
premises." c
47. Finally, however, the petition was allowed by the same
Judge, the order passed by the appellate authority was set
aside and the application filed by the landlords for possession
of property was dismissed.
..... _, D
48. Regarding comparative hardship, nothing has been
stated by the tenant as to whether any attempt has been made
by him to get alternative accommodation and he failed to get
such accommodation. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the
appellate authority was right in observing that there was no
evidence to show that no shop was available to the tenant. It is E
quite possible, as noted by the appellate authority, that the
tenant might have to pay more rent. But that would not preclude
the landlords from getting possession of the suit-shop once
they had proved genuine need of the property.
)··-1 F
49. It was also .submitted by the learned counsel for the
landlords that the tenant is not using the suit shop and has shifted
to Delhi. In a counter affidavit filed by Sudhir Kumar Bajaj in this
Court on November 3, 2004, the deponent has mentioned his
address as resident of 126, Dhamawala, Dehradun "having

-• temporarily come down to Delhi". In the affidavit in rejoinder,
applicant No.2 stated that Sudhir Kumar Bajaj is permanently
residing in Delhi since last more than one year. The rejoinder
was filed on 15th November, 2004. It is further stated that the
G

premises in dispute is vacant and is locked.
H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ~

A 50. In view of the facts and circumstances in their entirety
and on the findings recorded by the appellate authority, we
have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was not right
in interfering with the order passed by the appellate authority

8
and in dismissing the application of the landlords. The said
order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and we do
...
accordingly.
51. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The
order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of
eviction recorded by the appellant authority and the Additional
c District Judge Ill on 25th May, 2001 is restored.
52. The learned counsel for the tenants, at this stage,
prayed for grant of time to vacate the suit shop stating that the
tenant is doing business in the suit shop and if he is evicted
immediately, enormous hardship would be caused to him. Prima
D
facie, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the landlords is " .,
right in submitting that the tenant is not using the property. But
on overall considerations, we are of the view that ends of justice
would be met if we grant time upto March 31, 2009 on usual
undertaking being filed by the respondents herein. Such
E undertaking shall be filed on affidavit within a period of four
weeks from today, a copy of which should be given to the learned
counsel for the appellants.
53. The appeal is allowed accordingly. On the facts and
F in the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no i- •

order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.