IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate; the High Court in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal unless it is manifestly erroneous.

Headnote:(i) Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949-Section 13(3)(ii)-Habitual default in payment of rent-Under lease deed tenant obliged to pay rent before 10th of every month-In event of arrears of rent over three months landlord entitled to give notice and terminate tenancy if rent not paid within one month-Tenant continuously making default for first month by two months thereafter and paying rent in similar manner-Held, tenant was habitual defaulter within meaning of Section 13(3)(ii). (Para 5)
       (ii) Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949-Section 13(3)(iii)-Unauthorised subletting-Tenant allowing a Company for its business-Agreement nomenclatured as a consignment dealership-In reality premises sub-let and rent received in the name of commission-Rent Controller ordering eviction-Appellate authority holding there was no sub-tenancy-High Court on construction of agreement upholding Rent Controller s order-High Court justified in correcting mistake committed by Appellate Authority. (Paras 2 & 5)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-Judicial review-Scope of jurisdiction-High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings recorded by competent Tribunal-Jurisdiction supervisory and not appellate-If inferior Tribunal has committed manifest error by mis-construction of documents High Court will be fully justified in interfering with such findings.
       Undoubtedly, in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, is supervisory and not appellate. Consequently Article 226 is not intended to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of Appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or order to be made. But notwithstanding the same on a mere perusal of the order of an inferior Tribunal if the High Court comes to a conclusion that such Tribunal has committed manifest error by mis-construing certain documents, or the High Court comes to the conclusion that on the materials it is not possible for a reasonable man to come to a conclusion arrived at by the inferior Tribunal or the inferior Tribunal has ignored to take into consideration certain relevant materials or has taken into consideration certain materials which are not admissible, then the High Court will be fully justified in interfering with the findings of the inferior Tribunal. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is by the tenant assailing the order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, at Nagpur Bench, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench affirming the same. The Single Judge of the High Court in a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution interfered with the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the Appellate Court under the Control order? The respondent-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13(3)(ii), (iii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to determine the tenancy of the appellant, inter alia on the ground that the tenant is a habitual defaulter and has sub-let the premises and further, the landlord needs the premises for bona fide use. The Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated five issues and came to the conclusion that the tenant is a habitual defaulter; the tenant has sub-let the premises to the Sewing Machine firm and the need of the landlord is bona fide. With these conclusions the Controller granted permission for determining the tenancy of the tenant under Section 13(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Control Order. On an appeal, being carried under Section 21 of the aforesaid order, the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, who is the Appellate Authority, under the Control Order set aside the findings of the Controller on all the three issues and came to hold that the tenant cannot be held to be a habitual defaulter, that the landlord has failed to establish that the tenant has sub-let the premises and that the bona fide need has vanished as the need indicated in the application being for the business of his son and the son died in the meantime. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the permission granted by the Controller was set aside. The landlord assailed the legality of the order of the Appellate Authority by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 26th February, 1998, came to the conclusion that the Appellate Authority committed error apparent on the face of the order in setting aside the finding of the Controller on the question of habitual default by taking into consideration that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had been sent by the tenant to the landlord by money order and the said money order was refused. Though the money order from itself do not indicate the period for which the money was being sent. The learned Single Judge also came to hold that the default rent for the period September 1984 to November 1984 was paid in December only after the landlord obtained Distress Warrant from the Civil Court and not on his own, and therefore, the conclusion of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order is, on the face of it, erroneous. So far as the finding of sub-letting is concerned, the learned Single Judge considered the so-called agreement between the tenant and the Singer/Merit Company, and on construction of the terms of agreement it was found that the agreement though nomenclatured as a consignment dealership, but is nothing but a subletting, particularly when the tenant/respondent stays at Dombivali and it is the company which is in exclusive possession of the premises and transacting the business giving the tenant a rent of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. terming the same to be commission. With these conclusions the learned Single Judge of the High Court interfered with the order of the Appellate Authority and affirmed the order of the Controller thereby granting permission to the landlord under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (iii) of the Rent Control Order. The tenant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, approached the Division Bench in appeal when the Division B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1601

IMPORTANT POINTThe jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate; the High Court in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal unless it is manifestly erroneous.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate; the High Court in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal unless it is manifestly erroneous.