1. Eviction suits for breach of tenancy terms regarding unauthorized use of non-demised passages and spaces under the Bombay Rent Control Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., C.J.I., V.N. KHARE AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.
Khimji Vidhu, Appellant
VERSUS
Premier High School, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 670-71 of 1999 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 6571-6572 of 1998), D/- 5-2-1999.
Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be exercised sparingly and is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors; it cannot be used to overturn concurrent findings of fact, which is the exclusive domain of an appellate court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of jurisdiction - Power of High Court to be exercised sparingly - Jurisdiction intended to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to upset pure findings of fact, which falls within the domain of an appellate court. (Para 5)
(B) Rent Control Act - Eviction - Breach of tenancy terms - Use of passages and spaces not let out - Concurrent findings of fact by trial and first appellate courts regarding breach of terms not to be interfered with under Article 227. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant on the ground that the tenant committed a breach of tenancy terms by using passages and spaces not let out for purposes other than ingress and egress. Both the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the tenant had committed a breach of the terms of the tenancy of a vital nature. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, upset these findings of fact and set aside the eviction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting pure findings of fact. Jurisdiction under Article 227 must be sparingly exercised and is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and the like.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be used for correcting errors of jurisdiction and not to upset pure findings of fact, as the latter is the domain of an appellate court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts through writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Para 3 )
3. High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting pure findings of fact, which is the exclusive domain of an appellate court. (Para 5 )
4. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is for correcting jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to upset pure findings of fact. (Para 5 )
5. High Court judgment set aside, eviction maintained, and tenant granted time to vacate subject to payment of rent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding findings of fact?
Jurisdiction under Article 227 must be sparingly exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like, but it cannot be used to upset pure findings of fact, as such determinations fall within the domain of an appellate court. (Para 5 )
7. When does the use of common passages and spaces constitute a breach of tenancy terms?
When a lease deed restricts the use of spaces not forming part of the demised premises to ingress and egress only, using those spaces for any other purpose constitutes a breach of the terms of the tenancy. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the landlord while res-pondent is the tenant. The appellant filed two eviction suits in respect of premises let out to the respondent in the building known as Popatlal New Chawl. The ground on which eviction was sought was that the tenant had by using passages and spaces not let out to it, committed breach of the terms of the tenancy and in particular of Clause 11 and was therefore, not entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Both the suits were heard by the trial Court together. The trial Court. on facts, found that the passages and spaces had not been let out to the respondent and that by using the passages and spaces in the manner in which the respondent was using, there had been a clear breach of the terms of the tenancy. The suits were however, dismissed on the ground that there was no proper service of the notice of forfeiture of the tenancy of the tenant.
3. While the appellant filed appeals before the appellate Court of the Small Causes, the respondent filed cross-objections. The appellate Court, on facts, found that the trial Court was right in concluding that the passages and spaces had not been let out to the respondent and that the manner in which the same had been used, was in breach of the terms of the tenancy. Against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts, the respondent filed two petitions in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petitions were allowed and the findings of fact, as recorded by the two Courts below, were upset and the eviction set aside. Hence these appeals by the landlord on special leave.
4. We have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Under Condition (11) of the Lease Deed, the respondent was not to use any space which did not form part of the demised premises. So far as the passage and space, as also the staircase passage, are concerned, they could be used by the respondent only for ingress and egress to and from the demised rooms and for no other purpose. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, on the basis of the material on the record, came to the conclusion that the respondent had used the spaces and passages, which had not been let out to them, in a manner other than for use of ingress and egress and had committed breach of the terms of the tenancy of vital nature. Both the Courts detailed the manner in which the tenant had put to use the spaces 3496 and passages. These findings of fact could not have been interfered by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be sparingly exercised and may be exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact, which falls in the domain of an appellate Court only. The High Court, thus, exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by upsetting finding of fact and the impugned order, suffers from a jurisdictional defect. On this short ground, the appeals must succeed and are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The eviction ordered against the respondent is maintained.
6. In the demised premises, it is not disputed that a Junior College and High School are being run. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are almost 600 students studying in the School and the College. Mr. H. N. Salve, learned counsel for the appellant, keeping in view that the demised premises are being used for an educational institution very fairly did not oppose the grant of time to the tenant till 31st May 2002 to vacate and handover the vacant possession to the landlord subject to the respondent filing the usual undertaking within four weeks.
7. Mr. A. M. Khanwilkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, also fairly submitted that during this period, commencing 1st of February, 1999 till 31st May, 2002, the respondent shall pay rent for the demised promises
