1975 (2) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution.
2. Grounds for eviction under clauses (a) and (k) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Bombay Rent Act.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction u/Art. 227 by reappreciating evidence and disturbing findings of fact reached by the District Court. The High Court's power under Art. 227 is limited to ensuring that subordinate courts function within their authority and does not extend to correcting mere errors of fact. The High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 227. The Supreme Court cited previous decisions, including Waryam Singh v. Amarnath and Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commr. of Hills Division, to support this principle.

Grounds for Eviction under Clauses (a) and (k) of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Bombay Rent Act:
The dispute involved a shop leased for business purposes, which the tenant also used for residence. The respondents sought eviction under clauses (a) and (k) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Bombay Rent Act, alleging a change of use. The Trial Court and District Court initially found in favor of the respondents, but the High Court remanded the case to determine the dominant or primary use of the shop. Upon remand, the District Court found the primary use was for business, not residence, and thus ruled against eviction. The High Court, however, reappreciated the evidence and reversed this finding, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference with the District Court's findings was beyond its jurisdiction under Art. 227. The findings of fact by the District Court, being the ultimate court of fact, were binding and could not be questioned by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reversed the decree for eviction, dismissing the respondents' suit for possession.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the decree for eviction against the appellant was reversed. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellant throughout.