Mohd. Inam


Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors

Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2020

Provisions Involved

Article 227 of the Constitution of India


Rashid Ahmed, Father of the present appellanthad taken a house on rent in Mussorie` in the year 1965 and Sudesh Kumar Singalbeing the original Land had moved an application in the year 1999 to get thevacancy order contending that the tenant had sublet the property to some otherparties. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after certain inquiry gave anorder of vacancy on 4/6/2003 after which a writ petition was moved in HC ofUttaranchal at Nanital [W.P. No. 7(MS) of 2003] granting liberty to thepetitioners to challenge the order dated 4/06/2003 after the final order whichwas given on 31/05/2007. After which suit for revision was heard by DistrictJudge Dehradun [R.C.R. No. 122 of 2007] who set aside the order of vacancydated 4/06.2003. Then the respondent filed, W.P. No. 1074 OF 2008 (M/S) in HCof Uttaranchal at Nanital which was allowed by order dated 26/10/2007 underarticle 226 or 227 of the constitution. Being aggrieved by which Appellant hasfiled this suit.



Whether the HC in exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India right?


The District Judge has considered the words “allowed to be occupied” in section 12 of the U.P.Act, 1972 as interpreted in the case of Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others where it was held that the said words would be attracted if the possession of such a building had been given to a person, who was not family member of the tenant.It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, the HC cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. V. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, it was held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors.


The approach of HC in exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 was totally erroneous and hence the appeal is allowed. The order of the HC dated 26/10/2017 is quashed and set aside.