PRABHAT CHANDRA TANDON Vs. RADHEY SHYAM JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is landlord. He instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 1991 seeking ejectment of respondents-tenants on the ground that they have made structural alteration in the building in dispute which has resulted in diminishing value of property in dispute. However, Courts below found that landlord has completely failed to prove the aforesaid allegations and, therefore, dismissed the Suit vide judgment dated 13.10.2014 and there against petitioner's S.C.C. Revision No. 73 of 2004 has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad vide judgment dated 29.11.2013. Counsel for petitioner stated that there has been alternation made by respondents-tenants in the building in dispute, which they have admitted and for that no permission was obtained from petitioner, but in order to succeed in a suit for eviction on the ground of structural alteration under section 20(2)(c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), landlord is not only required to prove that structural alternation has been made without his permission but he has to further demonstrate that it has resulted in diminishing value of property. In the present case, both the Courts below have found that on this aspect, petitioner has failed and in absence of anything to show that aforesaid findings recorded by Courts below are perverse or contrary to record or that any material evidence has not been considered, I do not find any justification to interfere with this orders impugned in this writ petition in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

(2.) In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over Subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the Court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.

(3.) This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.