IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is not appellate but supervisory. It cannot interfere with a finding of fact recorded by lower court/tribunal unless there is no evidence to support the finding or the finding is perverse.

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4188 of 1989 passed on January 13, 1997. The appellants are the landlords of the House No. and C.T.S. No. 1422, Kasba Peth (old House No. 70 Raviwar Peth), Pune, (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises ) which was leased out to the first respondent, (Bhaskar Balwant Aher) who died during the pendency of the proceedings. His legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 1A to 1G. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as the appellants and the respondents .

2. The appellants let out the suit premises which comprised of three rooms-two rooms on the front side for purposes of running a motorcycle workshop and one room on the rear side for residential purposes - on monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. On August 30, 1985, the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 1423 of 1985 seeking eviction of respondent No. 1 from the suit premises on four grounds : (i) bona fide personal requirement; (ii) change of user; (iii) imprudent use causing damage to and waste of the suit premises; and (iv) causing nuisance and annoyance. The suit was resisted denying all the four grounds. On November 30, 1987, the Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, found all the four grounds in favour of the appellants and decreed the suit for eviction of the first respondent. His appeal, before the VIIth Additional District Judge, Pune, against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, resulted in dismissal on August 1, 1989. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court on three grounds; however, the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the appellants was found against them. The respondents then filed Writ Petition No. 4188 of 1989 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree of the VIIth Additional District Judge, Pune. The High Court reversed the finding of the learned District Judge on all the three grounds and thus allowed the writ petition on January 13, 1997, which is now under challenge in this appeal.

3. Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court ought not to have reappreciated the evidence and set aside the findings of facts found by the courts below concurrently and that on this ground alone the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. He argued the merits of grounds on which the findings of the courts below were upset by the High Court.

4. Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below were perverse and unsustainable, therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact and allowing the writ petition.

5. On the first submission of Mr. Lalit, it will suffice to observe that it is settled law that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is not appellate but supervisory. It cannot interfere with a finding of fact recorded by lower court/tribunal unless there is no evidence to support the finding or the finding is perverse.

6. One of the three grounds on which the courts below recorded the finding in favour of the appellants is change of user of the suit premises by the respondents. It has already been noticed above that the front rooms, which were let out for business purposes, were being used for residential purposes and the rear room which was let out for residential purposes, was being used partly for storing spare parts of the motor-cycle. This finding was reversed relying on the judgment of this Court in Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain1 wherein it was held that the premises let out for running a cycle and rickshaw repair shop was also being used for selling television sets. The Court held that it did not amount to change of user. The view taken by the High Court is supported by the de