Mohd. Inam ........... Appellant
vs.
Sanjay Kumar Singhal and ors. ................ Respondents
Facts of the case:
Rashid Ahmed, father of the Appellant, Mohd. Inam, was the original tenant of the concerned premises in Mussoorie, since 1965. Thereafter, the Respondents purchased the premises in 1998, hence becoming the new landlords of the Appellant. Then, the Respondents moved an application before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on 10.6.1999, contending that Rashid Ahmed had sublet the property to some other persons who were not his family members. To this, Rashid Ahmed filed an objection, stating therein that he and his brother and their families are living in the premises as tenants since 1965. While the proceedings were still going on, Rashid Ahmed died on 19.1.2000 in his village Bhatpura, leaving behind his son Mohd. Inam, the present Appellant. Passing a final order under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer allowed the landlord's application, declaring the premises 'vacant' because the Appellant had not provided any proof of the fact that they had been residing in the premises since 1965. The District Judge, allowing a revision petition filed by the tenant, set aside these orders. The High Court allowed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the Landlord. It further passed an order through which it set aside the order of the District Judge, on the ground that the District Judge had committed illegality by considering the joint revision filed by the Appellant against the Vacancy order as well as the final order.
Held :
Through a judgment dated 26th June 2020, a Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and BR Gavai observed that the High Court had 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 laid down by this Court in the case of Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others, wherein it was specifically held, that even if a party does not challenge the vacancy order by way of the writ petition, it's still open to it to challenge the same order, as well as the final order passed under Section 16, in revision under Section 18. However, the learned High Court Judge, in the impugned judgment, had not even referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Achal Misra, even though a relevant part of it has been reproduced in the earlier order of the said High Court.
The SC bench further observed, in that view of the matter, the District Judge was justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Office. While setting aside the High Court order, the bench also observed that it was wrong in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Judge, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It further observed that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is a well-settled principle of law, that, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. In the same manner, this supervisory jurisdiction extends to the duty of the High Courts to keep the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and see that they obey the law. It has also been held that though Article 227 vests a wide range of powers in the High Courts, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the limits of their authority, and not to correct mere errors. The court said that the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 in the present case, had made a grave error, which is manifestly unwarranted and unjustified.
