JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J. :—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of February 29, 1968, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree of July 22, 1962, of the Small Cause Court at Bombay in Suit No. 4271 of 1959 dismissing the respondents 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, Messrs United Tube & Hardware Co. The tenancy is in respect of the premises being Shop No. 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 pipefitting". 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 caries 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 respondents 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 5 1/2 (9) (63) feet". The other grounds, namely, of subletting 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 respondents appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court met with the same fate and the findings of the trial court were affirmed. That led to the application under Art. 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 landlords 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 SC which was then in vacation. Any way, 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 Art. 227 of the Constitution is well settled. Power under Art. 227 is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset conclusions of facts however erroneous those ma