RANJEET SINGH -4.

RA VI PRAKASH

MARCH 18, 2004

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

Rent Control and Eviction:

Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 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

D as it was in dilapidated condition-Dismissed by trial Court-Appeal allowed 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 respondenttenant 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.

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.

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

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.

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