http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1685 of 2004

PETITIONER: Ranjeet Singh

RESPONDENT: Ravi Prakash

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004

BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN.

JUDGMENT: J U D G E M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19166/2001)

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) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 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 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 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 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.

       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 Court 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 Court has clearly exceeded its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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  Vs.  Ram Chander Rai & Ors. - (2003) 6  SCC 675, 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 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 evidence or correcting the errors in  drawing inferences like a court of appeal.  The High Court has itself  recorded in its judgment that \026 "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.

       The approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced.  The  appeal 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 within a period of 4 weeks from today.  No order  as to costs.