The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 and the exercise of power of superintendence to ensure justice and prevent exceeding of jurisdiction by subordinate courts.

JUDGMENT :

The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners to assail the judgment and order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Court of 7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2020.

2. By the impugned judgment, the said Appeal preferred by the landlords for release of their commercial property, in occupation of the petitioners, has been allowed, and the judgment passed by the learned Prescribed Authority / 1st Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 22 of 2016 (Shri Harimohan and others vs. Shri Rajeev Rastogi and others) has been set aside. The aforesaid case before the Prescribed Authority was preferred by the landlords on the ground of bona fide needs of Kumari Shikha, daughter of late Mr. Jagmohan, who was 37 years of age and unmarried, on the ground that she desired to open a boutique in the premises in question to be able to earn her livelihood as she was not married, and had to fend for herself to meet her present needs and her needs in her old age. The said case was rejected by the Prescribed Authority while returning findings that there was suppression of facts and the bona fide need had not been made out. The Appellate Court has, however, reversed that judgment on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, and allowed the claim of the landlords.

3. The appellate judgment is a detailed and considered judgment, and the learned Additional District Judge has considered, in detail, all the aspects raised before him.

4. The cloak of Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to prefer an Appeal before the High Court, which, otherwise, is not maintainable as no statutory right of Appeal is created by the statute to assail an order of the Appellate Authority.

5. The law is well settled with regard to the scope of jurisdiction which a High Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its powers 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 the court or tribunal subordinate to it. The parameters for interference by High Courts in exercise of their power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including in the case of Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215. This jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court in order, only to keep tribunals and courts-subordinate to it, within the bounds of their authorities. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised to ensure that courts and tribunals subordinate to the High Court exercise jurisdiction, which is vested in them and that they do not exceed their jurisdiction while, also, in cases where courts and tribunals decline to exercise jurisdiction, which is vested in them. The power of superintendence is exercised by the High Court in cases of patent perversity in the orders passed by the subordinate courts and tribunals, or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice, or basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. Under this jurisdiction, High Court cannot correct mere errors of law or facts, or act just because another view-than the one taken by the courts or tribunals subordinate to the High Court, appeals to the High Court. This jurisdiction is to be exercised very sparingly. I may take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 in this regard.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned judgment suffers from a patent perversity. He submits that while passing the impugned judgment in Appeal, the findings returned by the Tr