Case: India Pipe Fitting Co Vs. Fakruddin M.A. Baker And Anr

There is no dispute in this appeal that the appellant is the tenant and the first respondent is the landlord. It is not necessary to describe the history of the assignment of the tenancy as well as the transfer of the ownership of the premises to the first respondent from his father who was the original landlord under which another party continued as tenant till May 1, 195 1, when the present appellant became the tenant by purchasing the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture, etc., from the original tenant, Messrs United Tube &Hardware Co. The tenancy is in respect of the premises being Shop No. 1 on the ground floor of the building known as "Asghar Manzil" at 146, Nagdevi Street, Bombay, "predominantly a locality for the business of hardwares and pipe-fitting". The Manzil has a ground floor and three other storeys. The entire property has been let out by the respondent to different persons. The appellant carries on the business of hardware and pipe-fitting in this shop. The respondent sought to evict the appellant by instituting a suit in the Small Causes Court on March 17, 1959, founding his claim on several grounds but we are confined in this appeal only to the respondents bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation "as an architect and engineering designer" to run his "office-cum-studio-cumshow-room" therein. "The dimensions of the suit premises are 51(9) (63) feet". The other grounds, namely, of subletting and irregular payment of rent were given up. The trial court dismissed the suit on July 2, 1962, holding that the premises were not reasonably and bona fide required by the respondent. The court also held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if the decree in ejectment were passed. The respondents appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court met with the same fate and the findings of the trial court were affirmed. That led to the application under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court at the instance of the landlord. This time the landlord was successful as the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition on June 23, 1972, interfering with the concurrent findings of fact and held that the landlords requirement was reasonable and bona fide and there was no question of greater hardship to the tenant.The learned Judge of the High Courtmy judgment, every one of the reasons and the entire approach of the learned Judges of the appellate Bench was per verse and shows a lack of awareness of the real conditions of accommodation in Bombay, at all times material to the suit and even now."The learned Judge further observed that "it seems that in the view of the learned trial Judge, richer the man greater the hardship to him, and poorer the man lesser the hardship toappellant made a grievance before us that the learned Judge of the High Court did not grant any time to him to obtain stay orders from the Supreme Court which was then in vacation. Any way, the appellant moved the learned Vacation Judge of this Court (Mathew, J.) on June 30, 1972, and obtained ex-parte stay of eviction and later obtained special leave to appeal after notice of motion. That is how the matter has come before us.

Court's reasoning:
After examining the reasons given by both the courts it is not possible to hold that the conclusions are "perverse" or even that these are against the weight of evidence on record. It is a case of reasonably possible factual appreciation of the entire evidence and circumstances brought on theis possible that another court may be able to take a different view of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner if it determinedly chooses to-do so. However, with respect to the learned Judge (Vaidya, J.) that will not be justice administered according to law to which courts are committed notwithstanding dissertation, in season and out of season, about philosophies.We are clearly of opinion that there was no justification for interference in this case with the conclusions of facts by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are also unable to agree with the High Court that there was anything so grossly wrong and unjust or shocking the courts "conscience" that it was absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the High Court to step in under Article 227 of the Constitution. Counsel for both sides took us through the reasoning given by the High Court as well as by the courts below and we are unable to hold that the High Court was at all correct in exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the decisions of the courts below. In our opinion the High Court arrogated to itself the powers of a court of appeal, which it did not possess under the law and has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.