The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, not to correct mere errors of law or fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has called in question the order dated 27th June, 2024 passed by the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate/ Sub Judge, Budgam [the “Trial Court”], in an application for grant of ad-interim relief in a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, which has been upheld by the learned Principal District Judge, Budgam [the “Appellate Court”], in terms of order dated 13th July, 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) was dismissed. The order passed by the learned Trial Court has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court and both the orders have been called in question through the medium of the instant petition by invoking powers of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution. The learned Trial Court by virtue of order impugned has disposed of the interim application in the suit preferred by the plaintiff.

2. The petitioner herein claims to be partner of M/S Aziz Tea Stall situated at Industrial Estate, Sanat Nagar, Barzulla and the said space was allotted vide lease deed executed on Industrial Estate Barzulla, Srinagar, to other partner of the tea stall i.e. Abdul Aziz Wani by way of partnership deed, a perusal whereof reveals that the petitioner is one of the partners and other two partners of the said tea stall being Abdul Aziz Wani and Javaid Ahmad Sofi. The said space was allotted by the respondents (defendants in the suit), to the partner of the tea stall i.e. Abdul Aziz Wani by virtue of license deed dated 26th August, 1983 for a period of ninety years.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff being one of the partners of M/S Aziz Tea Stall, was allotted the same through lease deed executed in the year 1983, which was initially given to Abdul Aziz Wani and later on, the plaintiff and another person entered into the partnership deed, in which, initially the business of JK Rolling Shutter was carried on and due to turmoil, the business did not flourish, which compelled the plaintiff and other partners to change the line of business by putting up canteen/tea stall. It was the specific case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that many a times, the plaintiff requested the defendants for the change of line and ultimately, defendants have imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the alleged illegal construction raised in the form of tea stall, besides directing the plaintiff that in addition to the fine imposed, the rent will be charged for extra space, if any, covered due to such renovation.

4. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that he was running the said tea stall from 2007 and the defendants started causing interference into the peaceful possession and business of the plaintiff by projecting that they have no legal authority to interfere into the said tea stall.

5. The defendants, however, projected that the lease was given to JK Rolling Shutter and not to M/S Aziz Tea Stall and even the extension was also in favour of JK Rolling Sutter and not to the said tea stall, as the plaintiff according to the defendants, was not the lessee as per the record of the department. Even the change of line of the business was also not warranted under law and as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, if any dispute arises between the parties, same was required to be send to the mediator/ arbitrator, which plaintiff has not done. Thus, as per the stand of the defendant, the plaintiff was illegally occupying the said space, as the lease given to JK Rolling Shutters has been cancelled.

6. As per the stand of the defendants, the petitioner was running the said stall illegally and even an FIR has also been lodged against the plaintiff (petitioner herein) and accordingly, a prayer was made that the suit be dismissed.

7. The learned Trial Court after having perused the material on record and the arguments advanced by both the