Powers under Article 227 are wide, must be exercised by HC sparingly and not to correct mere errors: Supreme Court

The SC on June 26, 2020 {MOHD. INAM vs SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.} held that an interlocutory order which had not been appealed from, either because no appeal lay or even though   an   appeal   lay,   an   appeal   was   not   taken,   can   be challenged in an appeal from a final decree or order.

It was further held by the Bench, comprising of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice B.R. Gavai, that the High Court has patently erred in holding, that the revision entertained by the District Judge against the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 along with the final order of release dated 31.5.2007 was not tenable.

The SC held that the revisional power does not entitle the   High   Court   to   interfere   with   the   finding   of   the   fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from   the   court/authority   below.  It was held that the   consideration   or examination of the evidence is confined to find out as to whether the finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. It was held, that a finding of fact recorded by court/authority   below,   if   perverse   or   has   been   arrived   at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, in such a case, it is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law.

It was held that the   revisional   powers   conferred   upon   the   District Judge under the U.P.   Urban   Buildings   (Regulation   of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (referred to as “U.P. Act, 1972” or “the Act”) are almost analogous with the   revisional   powers   of   the   High   Court   that   have   been interpreted earlier by the Supreme Court.  It was held that the said principles can be aptly made applicable to the revisional powers of the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972. It was also held by the SC that if the said principles are applied to the facts of the present case, it could be seen, that the learned District Judge was fully justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer.

It was held that a perusal of the inspection report clearly established, that the original tenant was residing in the tenanted premises along with his son, brother’s son and their families. It was held that as such, the inspection report clearly established, that no person who was   not   a   member   of   the   tenant’s   family   was   allowed to occupy the premises in his own right. It was held as such, the finding of the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer that the landlord had proved the case under clause (b) of sub­ section (1) of Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 was totally contrary to the law as interpreted   by   the  Court. It was held that not only that, the finding as recorded by the said authority   was   totally   on   misreading   or   ignorance   of   the evidence on the record. It was held that it could thus be seen, that the case would   squarely   fall   in   the   category   of   exercising   the jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity.   In that view of the matter, the SC held that the learned District Judge was wholly justified in interfering with the order impugned before him and reversing the same.  

The SC held that the learned single judge of the High Court has also erred in interfering with the well­ reasoned order passed by the learned District Judge while exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court held that 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 was held that 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 was also 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.

In the present case, the SC held that   the   approach   of   the   High   Court   in   exercising   the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was totally erroneous. It was held that the learned District Judge while exercising his power under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972 and after finding that the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer was totally contrary to the law laid down by this   Court,   while   interpreting clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 and also that the order passed was totally on a perverse reading of the evidence, had interfered with the said order and   reversed   the   same.

In the result, the appeal was allowed by the SC. The order of the High   Court   dated 26.10.2017 was   quashed   and   set   aside.