w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Chhedi Lal Gupta v/s District Judge


Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH2005PTC154038

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC077255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1974PTC007339

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204DL1954PTC002390

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

    Writ A. No. 20968 of 2003

    Decided On, 03 March 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL

    For the Appellant: Shashi Nandan, B. Tewari, Nitin Chandra Mishra, Rajeev Misra, Advocates. For the Respondent: B.N. Singh, Advocate, A.K. Singh, S.C.



Judgment Text

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, and perused the record. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.1.1998 whereby Prescribed Authority has allowed respondents-landlords' application u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") in respect to shop in question and the appellate order dated 1.5.2003 passed by District Judge, Kushinagar, at Padrauna dismissing petitioner's Rent Appeal No. 14 of 2002. It is contended that the objection raised by petitioner opposing application of petitioner u/s 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 in respect to genuinity of personal need has not been looked into. However, from the record, it appears that both the Courts below have found that petitioner owns another residential house in the same Town Area and in that view of the matter, they have not allowed petitioner to object Release Application filed by landlords u/s 21(1)(a), in view of Explanation (i) thereof which reads as under:

"Explanation.--In the case of a residential building--

(i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependent on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained."

(Emphasis added)

2. This factum that petitioner owns another residential accommodation in the same Town Area is not disputed. That being so, no objection so far as petitioner is concerned with respect to application of landlords was liable to be entertained, since it was barred by Statute. Therefore Courts below have rightly considered landlords' application and believing the same to be true, have passed the impugned order. Findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. In D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R. Mukherjee and Others, the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."

6. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, and made following observations at p. 571:

"This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".

7. In Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, the Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice.

8. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag etc. Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, ; Rukumanand Bairoliya Vs. The State of Bihar, ; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Others Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others, ; Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi Deceased through his Heirs and Legal Representatives, ; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel and others, Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, and Virendra Kashinath Ravat and Another Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi and Others,

9. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Mrs. Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni, Etc., Chandra Bhushan (Deceased) by Lrs. Vs. Beni Prasad and Others, ; Smt. Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate and Others Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, and M/s. Savita Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Dyes and Chemical Workers Union and Another,

10. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India and Others Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar,

11. In Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, the Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

12. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri and Others Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aher (D) Through I.Rs., the Court said that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse.

13. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another, the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to re-appreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.

14. In Union of India and Others Vs. Rajendra Prabha and Another, the Court observed that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below.

15. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others, M/s. Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., and Ouseph Mathai and Others Vs. M. Abdul Khadir,

16. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, , it was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it is also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

17. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the Court said:

"...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions."

18. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the, fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and Others Vs. K.D. Ga

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

napathi and Another, and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya and Others, 19. In Abdul Razak (D) through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and Others, Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 20. In TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Others, the Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. 21. In The Commandant, 22 Battalion, CRPF Srinagar, C/o 56/APO and Others Vs. Surinder Kumar, Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India and Others Vs. R.K. Sharma, observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227. 22. In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

29-07-2020 Satyabrat Gupta V/S The State of Jharkhand Supreme Court of India
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-06-2020 Kishan Gupta Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-06-2020 R.N. Gupta Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 Prof. Shreekant Gupta Versus University of Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-06-2020 Jai Deo Gupta & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
10-06-2020 Umesh Gupta Versus PB Retail Private Limited High Court of Delhi
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-06-2020 Hari Om Gupta & Another Versus Jyoti Bhatia High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-05-2020 Raj Kumar Gupta Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-05-2020 Vibhutee Kumar Gupta Versus State of Odisha High Court of Orissa
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
12-05-2020 Dr. R.S. Gupta Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 O.P. Gupta Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 For the Petitioner: Suo Moto, Deba Siddiqui, Swetashwa Agarwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.A., Manish Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-04-2020 Ajay Gupta Versus Sonia Gupta High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Kashish Gupta Versus The Central Board of Secondary Education, Represented by its Secretary, Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
29-04-2020 Neelam Gupta Versus Mahipal Sharan Gupta & Another Supreme Court of India
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-03-2020 Raghav Gupta Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Mohan Gupta Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
20-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Rajat Gupta Versus NCB Lucknow High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-03-2020 Rajesh Gupta Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Anjeli Vaid Versus Sanjay Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-03-2020 Sudha Gupta V/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Another Versus M/s. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust & Others Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 Vikas Aggarwal Versus Bal Krishna Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Ashok Kumar Gupta (Died) Versus Gauri Bagchi High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-02-2020 Arun Kumar Gupta Versus State of Jharkhand & Another Supreme Court of India
27-02-2020 Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited Mr. Subhransu Gupta, Chief Financial Officer CESE House Chowringhe Square Kolkata Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Kuldeep Gupta & Another Versus Mahender Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-02-2020 Loveleen Gupta & Another Versus Ram Pratap Singhal & Others High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Neeta Saha, Member of Suspended Board of Palm Developers Pvt. Ltd., U.P. Versus Ram Niwas Gupta (Proprietor of Ram Niwas Gupta & sons), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 Sudha Gupta & Another Versus A.K. Gupta & Another High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 Jatinder Chhabra Versus Daya Prakash Gupta (Deceased) Thr Lrs High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Mohd Shafiq & Others Versus Anuradha Gupta, Director School Education & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) Versus V.K. Gupta High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-02-2020 Aarti Gupta Versus M/s. Jubilant Oil & Gas Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Krishna Shri Gupta Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2020 Satish Kumar Gupta Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-02-2020 Anoop Gupta Versus Union Of India Thru Secy. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Bank of India V/S Bhushan Gupta And Sons and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Pradeep Ramgopal Gupta Versus Rukminibai Rammanohar Shahu & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 Sudha Gupta Versus Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
29-01-2020 Indiraa Bhasin Versus Ashwini Gupta High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Sanjeev Gupta Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Director (Personnel), WCL Head Office situated at Civil Lines & Others Versus Sadashiv Sittidin Gupta In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Another Versus Sanjay Gupta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-01-2020 Gulab Gupta & Others Versus Chandrashekhar Gupta & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-01-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
18-01-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Purbita Gupta Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-01-2020 B.K. Gupta & Another Versus S. Gurmukh Singh High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 P.C. Gupta Versus Park Mediclaim TPA Pvt. Ltd. & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-01-2020 T.V. Vishwanath Gupta & Others Versus Amara Jyothi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Baiju Prasad Gupta Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Rajnish Gupta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Mukesh Gupta & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 Prasanta Kumar Gupta Versus The N.F. Railway, Represented by General Manager, Maligaon & Anothe Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati