CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2697 OF 2020
RE: MOHD. INAM VS. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL
In this case, the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, allowing the landlord’s application, passed a final order under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, declaring the suit premises ‘vacant’. The District Judge, allowing a revision petition filed by the tenant, set aside these orders. The High Court, allowing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the Landlord, set aside the order of District Judge on the ground that the District Judge had committed illegality in entertaining the joint revision filed against the vacancy order as well as the final order
The bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and BR Gavai observed that the High Court ignored the legal position expounded in a three judge bench judgment in 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 writ petition, it is still open to it to challenge the same order along with the final order passed under Section 16 in the revision under Section 18. The bench observed that, in that view of the matter, the District Judge was fully 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 erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Judge while exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It observed:
“It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. ”
The court said that the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 in the present case was patently unwarranted and unjustified.