The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227, emphasizing that it is not to correct errors but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction.

This is tenant's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") for release of accommodation in question from petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal need. Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact in favour of respondent-landlord on both the question, namely, on genuity of personal hardship as also comparative hardship.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any error apparent on face of record in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Unless the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.

3. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and 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.

4. 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.

5. 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."

6. 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 keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".

7. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice.

8. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel &