VIDYABEN JAYANTILAL THAKKAR Vs. DEENA DORE SUKHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging concurrent decrees by the two Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit and dismissing defendant's appeal therefrom.

(2.) Hearing rival submission of respective Counsel and going through the judgments of the two Courts below, I find this to be a case which does not warrant interference by this Court. The District Court, which is a final Court of facts, has at length considered each and every contention of the respective parties and on its own consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. Questions involved are mainly questions of fact at the highest albeit only to a limited extent mixed questions of fact and law. A writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is neither an appeal nor a continuation as such of proceedings before the lower Court. Writ jurisdiction is a jurisdiction which is circumscribed, limited and discretionary. This Court will not interfere only or merely because it may, on the facts and circumstances, be inclined to take a view different from that taken concurrently by the two Courts. Article 227 of the Constitution confers only a power of superintendence. If the impugned orders and/or judgments are based on appreciation of facts and circumstances and if the said orders and/or judgments are within the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal in question, this Court will not interfere. As held by the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1960 AIR(SC) 137 :

(3.) However, as the petition was argued at length, this further speaking order is being given. Suit for possession was filed on more than one ground under the Bombay Rent Act. Courts below have decided the plaintiff's claim on the following grounds :-