Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.1991 (Annexure 14 to writ petition) whereby the Appellate Court, while allowing appeal of tenant, has set aside order passed by Prescribed Authority releasing accommodation in question in favour of landlord The appellate Court has dismissed the application.

2. Sri U.S.M. Tripathi Advocate, appearing for petitioner submitted that the impugned order contains several findings which are perverse. However, despite repeated query, he could not show any such perversity. In fact he drew my attention to page 104 of writ petition to show that the finding that landlord has not vacated earlier shop which was in his tenancy and owned by one Radhey Lal. He also referred to Annexure XIII-B to writ petition at page 86 which is said to be a letter written by Sri Radhey Lal. However, when further inquired he admitted that this document though filed before the Court below as evidence but was not exhibited since it was not proved before the Court below. That being so, the document having not been exhibited before Court below is not an admissible evidence and therefore reliance placed thereon in this writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. The learned counsel for petitioner is trying to place a document which was not admitted as an evidence by the Court below. No such document can be relied in this Court in proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Courts below have recorded findings that in the earlier shop landlord was doing business of jute bags and molasses while in the shop vacated by one Sukhnandan he started business of brass wares and since it was not his case that he stopped business of jute bags and molasses, meaning thereby the tenanted shop of petitioner still continued to be in his possession in which business of jute bags and molasses had continued. Petitioner did not place anything to show that the business of jute bags and molasses has been closed or has been shifted to any other place. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to accept that this part of finding is perverse in any manner.

3. No other finding has been shown perverse. No other argument advanced.

4. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited.

5. The scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.

6. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

7. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."

8. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 :

"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to k

Click Here to Read the rest of this document