KAMLABAI Vs. AMINABEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent finding of facts by the two courts below that the respondent/landlady required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for her personal use and occupation is sought to be challenged by this petition filed by the original tenant against whom the decree for possession is passed. Before I deal with the matter on merits, it is necessary that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in dealing with petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be borne in mind. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been interpreted more than once by the Supreme Court. This extraordinary power has to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power cannot be exercised or revoked to correct an error of fact. The High Court cannot under the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India convert itself into a Court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate Court or Tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. These guidelines laid down in (Babhutmal v. Laxmibai) reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1297 apply to the facts of this case on all fours. I may further add that in this exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court, the party who seeks relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must not be guilty of negligence. As I will presently show, on diligence has been shown by the petitioner/tenant when the proceedings were going on before the Rent Controller. 1-A. The present respondent/landlady had filed an eviction suit before the Rent Controller, Aurangabad on July 12, 1971 for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. Her case before the Rent Controller was that she was the owner of the suit premises bearing Municipal House No. 1-11-164 situated at Mohalla Juna Bazar, Aurangabad. The petitioner was admittedly a tenant in Rooms Nos. 6 and 7 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The main ground on which the suit came to be filed was that the respondent/landlady required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for her own use and occupation. Her case was that she had a large family and it consisted of six school-going daughters and two of them were studying in college. She also had one son. All the children were studying and two daughters were studying in the B.A. Class. One daughter was in Tenth Standard and the other was in Seventh Standard. She needed the suit premises for her childrens study. Both, the respondent/landlady and her husband were keeping ill health. Her husband had been operated upon. In the brief evidence that was recorded, she also stated that she has no other house besides this one and she wanted this house for her personal use and occupation. She was cross-examined and all that was put to her by the petitioner/tenant that her husband and she were not suffering from any illness which of course the landlady denied. No question of any reference was put to her in cross-examination. Mr. Bora, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/tenant drew my attention to a portion of the cross-examination where the landlady seems to have admitted that there were other tenants also. That has hardly any relevance to the landladys bona fide and reasonable requirements for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) The chequered history of this suit before the Rent Controller needs to be briefly referred to. The learned District Judge has pointed out in paragraph 3 of his judgment that the suit was pending before the Rent Controller for three years and on several dates the petitioner/tenant refused to attend the proceedings. Inspite of the indulgences shown by the Rent Controller to the present petitioner/tenant, nothing of merit was put to the landlady to destroy her case for possession of the suit premises. As I have stated earlier, if anything the cross-examination of the landlady was most perfunctory.

(3.) When the petitioner/tenant carried an appeal to the District Court, in the appeal memo that was filed, except stating that the ingredients of bona fide and personal use having not been proved beyond doubt, no other grounds challenging the bona fide and reasonable requirements were taken up. The learned District Judge, therefore, had no other alternative except to hold that there was no merit in the appeal both, on the question sufficient opportunity not been given to her to lead evidence or on the question of bona fide and reasonable personal requirements. He also held in para 6 of his judgment that the respondent/plaintiff had large family and needed the additional accommodation. She has a two rooms accommodation and a kitchen room. According to the learned District Judge, for the grown up family and two of them being daughters going to college and others schooling, the accommodation of the plaintiff is insufficient. He further observed that it has not been shown that the plaintiffs accommodation is sufficient for her needs. In view of these findings arrived at, the learned District Judge, Aurangabad dismissed the tenants appeal by his order dated July 5, 1977.