- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin M.A Baker And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant is the tenant of Shop No. 1 on the ground floor of “Asghar Manzil”, 146 Nagdevi Street, Bombay, where he conducts a hardware and pipe-fitting business. The first respondent is the landlord. On March 17, 1959 the landlord filed Suit No. 4271 of 1959 in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, seeking eviction on several grounds under the Bombay Rent legislation, but ultimately pursued only the ground that he bona fide and reasonably required the premises for his own office-cum-studio-cum-show-room as an architect and engineering designer.
The trial court dismissed the suit on July 2, 1962, holding that the requirement was neither reasonable nor bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court affirmed that dismissal on February 29, 1968.
The landlord then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge (Vaidya, J.) allowed the petition on June 23, 1972, characterising the lower courts’ approach as “perverse” and granting eviction. The tenant obtained an interim stay from the Supreme Court’s Vacation Judge on June 30, 1972 and subsequently secured special leave, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Bombay High Court exceeded the permissible limits of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution by overturning concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.
- Consequent to Issue 1, whether the landlord’s claim of reasonable and bona fide requirement, rejected by both lower courts, could legitimately be reinstated by the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 | Article 227 power is one of limited judicial superintendence, to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within jurisdiction, not to correct mere errors. | Relied upon to define the narrow scope of interference and to demonstrate that the High Court overstepped that boundary. |
| Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 1951 Cal 193 | Early articulation of the restrictive nature of Article 227 jurisdiction. | Cited through Waryam Singh to reinforce the settled limits on supervisory power. |
| Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division & Appeals, Assam, AIR 1958 SC 398 | Reiteration of the principles governing Article 227: no re-appreciation of evidence or correction of factual errors. | Used to buttress the conclusion that the High Court functioned as a court of appeal in contravention of these principles. |
| Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 858 | Even an apparent error of fact is not corrigible under Article 227; certiorari principles apply a fortiori. | Quoted to emphasise that factual findings adverse to a party cannot be revisited under Article 227. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice P.K. Goswami reaffirmed the settled law that Article 227 confers only a power of supervision to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction. It is not a vehicle for re-appreciating evidence or correcting erroneous factual conclusions.
The Supreme Court examined the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Appellate Bench, which had assessed the entire evidence and held against the landlord on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship. These findings, in the Supreme Court’s view, were at least “reasonably possible” on the record and could not be branded as perverse.
The High Court had described the lower courts’ approach as showing a “lack of awareness of the real conditions of accommodation in Bombay” and had effectively reassessed the evidence. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to the High Court arrogating to itself the role of an appellate court, something Article 227 does not permit.
Finding no element that “shocked the conscience” of the court or any jurisdictional error, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s interference was unjustified and beyond its constitutional mandate.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decrees of the trial court and Appellate Bench dismissing the landlord’s suit restored.
Direct Effect: The tenant remains in possession, and the landlord’s eviction suit stands dismissed. Costs of the Supreme Court proceedings are payable by the appellant pursuant to the earlier special-leave order.
Broader Implication: The decision reiterates, without creating new precedent, the stringent limits on High Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, underscoring that concurrent factual findings cannot be disturbed absent jurisdictional error or perversity.
P.K Goswami, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of February 29, 1968, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree of July 22, 1962, of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Suit 4271 of 1959 dismissing the respondent's suit.
2. There is no dispute in this appeal that the appellant is the tenant and the first respondent is the landlord. It is not necessary to describe the history of the assignment of the tenancy as well as the transfer of the ownership of the premises to the first respondent from his father who was the original landlord under which another party continued as tenant till May 1, 1951, when the present appellant became the tenant by purchasing the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture, etc. from the original tenant, United Tube & Hardware Co. The tenancy is in respect of the premises being Shop 1 on the ground floor of the building known as “Asghar Manzil” at 146, Nagdevi Street, Bombay, “predominantly a locality for the business of hardwares and pipe-fitting.” The Manzil has a ground floor and three other storeys. The entire property has been let out by the respondent to different persons. The appellant carries on the business of hardware and pipe-fitting in this shop. The respondent sought to evict the appellant by instituting a suit in the Small Causes Court on March 17, 1959, founding his claim on several grounds but we are confined in this appeal only to the respondent's bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation “as an architect and engineering designer” to run his “office-cum-studio-cum-show-room” therein. “The dimensions of the suit premises are 5½(9)(63) feet.” The other grounds, namely, of sub-letting and irregular payment of rent were given up. The trial court dismissed the suit on July 2, 1962, holding that the premises were not reasonably and bona fide required by the respondent. The court also held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if the decree in ejectment were passed. The respondent's appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court met with the same fate and the findings of the trial court were affirmed. That led to the application under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court at the instance of the landlord. This time the landlord was successful as the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition on June 23, 1972, interfering with the concurrent findings of fact and held that the landlord's requirement was reasonable and bona fide and there was no question of greater hardship to the tenant.
3. The learned Judge of the High Court observed:
“In my judgment, every one of the reasons and the entire approach of the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench was perverse and shows a lack of awareness of the real conditions of accommodation in Bombay, at all times material to the suit and even now.”
The learned Judge further observed that “it seems that in the view of the learned trial Judge, richer the man greater the hardship to him and poorer the man lesser the hardship to him . . .”.
4. The appellant made a grievance before us that the learned Judge of the High Court did not grant any time to him to obtain stay orders from the Supreme Court which was then in vacation. Anyway, the appellant moved the learned Vacation Judge of this Court (Mathew, J.) on June 30, 1972, and obtained ex parte stay of eviction and later obtained special leave to appeal after notice of motion. That is how the matter has come before us.
5. The limitation of the High Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution is well-settled. Power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset conclusions of facts however erroneous those may be. It is well-settled and perhaps too late in the day to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath AIR 1954 SC 215, 1954 SCR 565, 1954 SCJ 290 where the principles have been clearly laid down as follows:
“This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J, in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal 193 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.”
The same view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam AIR 1958 SC 398, 1958 SCR 1240, 1958 SCJ 798. Even recently in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta (1975) 1 SCC 858 dealing with a litigation between a landlord and tenant under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, this Court relying on its earlier decisions observed as follows:
“If an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected by means of a writ of certiorari it should follow a fortiori that it is not subject to correction by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227. The power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 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.”
6. Whether the landlord's requirement is bona fide and reasonable has been concurrently found by the two courts below against the landlord by appreciating the entire evidence. After examining the reasons given by both the Courts it is not possible to hold that the conclusions are “perverse” or even that these are against the weight of evidence on record. It is a case of reasonably possible factual appreciation of the entire evidence and circumstances brought on the record.
7. It is possible that another Court may be able to take a different view of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner, if it determinedly chooses to do so. However, with respect to the learned Judge (Vaidya, J.) that will not be justice administered according to law to which courts are committed notwithstanding dissertation, in season and out of season, about philosophies.
8. We are clearly of opinion that there was no justification for interference in this case with the conclusions of facts by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are also unable to agree with the High Court that there was anything so grossly wrong and unjust or shocking the Court's “conscience” that it was absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the High Court to step in under Article 227 of the Constitution. Counsel for both sides took us through the reasonings given by the High Court as well as by the Courts below and we are unable to hold that the High Court was at all correct in exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the decisions of the courts below. In our opinion the High Court arrogated to itself the powers of a court of appeal, which it did not possess under the law, and has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and those of the trial court and the Appellate Bench are restored. Since there was an order at the time of granting the special leave that costs would be borne by the appellant in any event, the first respondent will be entitled to his costs in this appeal.
Alert