HARBANS LAL versus JAGMOHAN SARAN

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 10-10-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
634 
llARBANS LAL 
v. 
JAIMIHAN SARAN 
OCTOBER 10, 1985 
[R.S. PATHAK AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ •] 
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ of certiorari -
When can be issued -
Power of High Court to reappraise the 
evidence - When arises. 
U.P, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972, s. 12 (1) (b) - Agent carrying on business 
in the building on behalf of the original tenant -
Tenant -
Whether deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. 
The respondent-landlord filed a petition under s. 12 read 
with s. 16 of the u.p, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the appellant-tenant in 
respect of a shop situated in the district of Bu!awlshahr, He 
claimed a declaration that the shop had fallen vacant ad that it 
should be released to him on the ground that the appellant-tenant 
had sub-let the shop to one Ysdram and had allowed it to be 
occupied by Ysdram and his son Madan Lal, neither of whom was a 
member of the appellant 1 s 
family. 
The prescribed Authority 
dismissed the respondent's petition, holding (i) that the 
respondent had failed to prove that the appellant bad sub-let the 
shop and that it could be deemed to be vacant; and (ii) that the 
appellant had eatablished that he waa conducting his buainess of 
selling vegetablea in the shop and that Madan Lal sat in on his 
behalf. An appeal by the reapondent was also diamisaed by the 
Second Additional District Judge, Bulandabahr. However, the High 
Court in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, nmanded the 
case to the prescribed Authority for passing orders on the 
respondent's application for release of the property frcxa 
allotment on the ground that the appellant bad been unable to 
establish any legal relationship of agency between himself and 
Madan Lal or Yadram and therefore it must be taken that it was 
Madan Lal who was occupying the shop within the me•nlng of 
s. 12 (l)(b) of the U.P. Act. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HARBANS LAL v. JAGMOHAN SARAN 
635 
HKLD: l. It is well known that a writ in the nature of 
certiorari may be issued only if the order of the inferior 
tribunal 
or 
subordinate 
court suffers from 
an error of 
jurisdiction or from a breach of the principles of natural 
justice or is vitiated by a manifest or apparent error of law. 
There is no sanction enabling the High Court to reappraise the 
evidence without sufficient reason in law and reach findings of 
fact contrary to those rendered by an inferior court or 
subordinate court. When a High Court proceeds to do so, it acts 
plainly in excess of its powers. [637 A-C) 
In the instant case, the finding is that Madan Lal sat in 
the shop conducting the \legetable selling business on behalf of 
the appellant. The findings of fact by both authorities rested .on 
evidence, and there was no warrant for disturbing that finding of 
fact in a writ petition. [636 G-11) 
2. Under s. l2(l)(b) of the u.p. Act ·a tenant of a building 
is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building if he bas allowed 
it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his 
family. The occupation of a person envisaged here cannot possibly 
include the occupation by any person as the agent of the tenant. 
When a person sits in the premises and carries on a business on 
beh&lf of and for the original occupant, it cannot be said that 
the original occupant bas thereby allowed the accommodation to be 
occupied within the meaning of s. 12 (l)(b). [638 B-F) 
Slit. Jr.eabar 1111.i .v. District Judge, llatbura and Ora., [1980) 
6 A.L.R. 165 ref erred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 2866 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated l.8.1979 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1942 of 1977. 
Shankar Ghosh and B.P. MaheBhwari for the Appellant. 
G.L. Sanghi, Mr. Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalita Kohli for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PAillAK, J; : This 
appeal 
by ·speciai leave is directed 
against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing the 
respondents writ petition on the finding that the accommodation 
let out to the appellant must 'be deemed to be vacant. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
1 • 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ll985] SUPP.3 S.G.R. 
The respondent is the landlord and the appellant is the 
tenant of a shop in Mohalla Nan Panjan, Khurja in the district of 
llulandshahr. The respondent filed a petition under s. 12 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.