The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view.

1. - The petitioner-defendant has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, in Civil Original Case No. 5 of 2012, Pravin Kumar v. Ratan Lal , whereby the learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. By filing the said application, the petitioner prayed that record of Civil Suit No. 19/1981, which suit was decreed on 22.5.1990, may be summoned for proper disposal of the eviction petition filed by the respondent- landlord.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner defendant/tenant at some length and in view of Apex Court's decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 , this Court finds no force in the present writ petition requiring interference of this Court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), has held as under:

"62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of Tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC