Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The respondent-landlord filed, 7 petitions for ejectment against 7 different tenants. Four out of these occupied shop premises on the ground floor and the other 3 occupied residential premises on the first floor of a building situated at Door No. 14, Pursuawalkam High Road, Madras. The appellant is one of the four tenants of a shop on the ground floor.

2. The case of the respondent is that he is running a wholesale business in textiles on the first floor of a building at 93 Godown Street. Madras; that it is inconvenient and uneconomical for him to carry on his business there that he was incurring heavy losses in his wholesale business by reason of conditions peculiar to the location of his business and that, therefore, he wanted to wind up the wholesale business and start a retail business in the building which was in the occupation of his tenants.

3. The learned trial Judge decreed all the petitions and passed orders of eviction against every one of the 7 tenants. One of these, who occupied a so-called shop measuring 4 x 4 under a stairway, acquiesced in the decree of eviction passed against him. The other 3 tenants of the shop premises challenged the decrees of eviction passed against them by riling appeals before the Appellate Authority. In so far as the residential premises are concerned, 2 out of the 3 tenants on the first floor filed appeals against the eviction decrees. The third tenant, like the ground floor tenant under the stairway, acquiesced in the decree. In short, 5 out of the 7 tenants against whom decrees for eviction were passed, filed appeals while the remaining two did not.

4. The Appellate Authority dismissed all the 3 appeals of the tenants of the shop premises on the ground floor but, allowed the appeals filed by the two tenants of the residential premises on the first floor. The combined result of the proceedings in the trial Court and the first appellate Court was that the respondent succeeded in obtaining decrees for possession against all the 4 tenants on the ground floor and 1 tenant on the first floor.

5. Out of the 3 tenants on the ground floor against whom decrees for eviction were confirmed by the Appellate Authority (the fourth tenant not having appealed), only one, namely, the appellant therein, went to the High Court by way of a civil revision petition (C.R.P. No. 122 of 1979). The other two tenants on the ground floor accepted the decree of eviction confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the position which obtained during the pendency of the civil revision petition before the High Court was that the respondent had succeeded, finally and conclusively, in establishing his right to recover or in recovering possession from 3 out of the 4 tenants of the shop premises on the ground floor and 1 out of the 3 tenants of the residential premises on the first floor. The High Court having dismissed the civil revision petition, the appellant has filed this, appeal by special leave.

6. It cannot be overlooked that three courts have held concurrently in, this case that the respondent has proved that he requires the suit premises bona fide for his personal need. Such concurrence, undoubtedly, has relevance on the question whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution to review a particular decision. That jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly. But, that cannot possibly mean that injustice must be perpetuated because it has been done three times in a case. The burden of showing that a concurrent decision of two or more Courts or Tribunals is manifestly unjust lies on the appellant. But once that burden is discharged, it is not only the right but the duty of this Court to remedy the injustice. Shri Tarkunde, who appears for the respondent argued that this may lead and, in practice, does lead to different standards being applied by different courts to find out whether a concurrent decision is patently illegal or unjust. That, in the presen