INDIA PIPE FITTING CO. versus FAKRUDDIN M.A. BAKER AND ANR.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 04-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
797 
INDIA PIPE FITTING CO. 
v. 
FAKRUDDIN M.A. BAKER AND ANR. 
November 4, 1977 
(P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of J11dia, 1950-Powers of High 
Power of Superintend'!nce, cannot be exercised to 
facts .. however erroneous, they n1ay be. 
Court 
upset 
under 
Art. 227-
the conclusions of 
A 
B 
The appellant who carries on the business of hardware and pipe-fitting by 
purchasing the good-will and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the 
stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture 
etc. ffom the original 
tenant becan1e 
the 
C 
tenant in shop No. 1 on the ground floor of the suit buildng known as "Asghar 
Manzil" in Nagdevi Street Bombay, "predominantly a locality for the business 
of hardwares and pipe-fitting", 
The eviction suit filed by the respondent in the 
Small Causes Court on various grounds including bonafide and reasonable re-
quirement was dismissed. 
The court held that greater hardship could be caused 
to the tenant, if the decr:e of ejectment was passed. 
An apepal against the 
said order having failed, the respondent moved the High Court Art. 227. 
The 
High Court allowed it interfering with the concurrent findings of 
facts and 
held 
that the landlord's requirement was reasonable and bonafide and there 
D 
was no question of greater hardship to the tenant. 
Allowing the tenant's appeal by special leave the Court : 
HELD : 1. The limitation of the Court while exercisin2 power under Art. 
227 of the Constitution is well settled. 
Power under Art. 227 is one of judicial 
superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset the conclusions of facts, how-
ever, erroneous these may be. [799 B-C] 
JVarya1n Singh &: Anr. v. An1ar11ath and A nr., [1954] SCR 565; Nag~ndra 
Nath Bora and Anr. v. The Conunissioner of Hills Division 
and 
Appeals, 
Assa111 and Ors.,· [1958] S.C.R. 1240 and Bathutn1al Raichand Oswal v. Laxmi-
bai R. Tarta and Anr., [1975] 1 S.C.C. 858 reiterated. 
E 
(2) It is possible that another Court may be able to take a different view 
of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner, if it is deter-
minedly choose-s to do so. 
That will not be justice administered according tL 
F 
Jaw to which Courts are committed not\vithstanding dissertation in season and 
out of season, about philosophies. [800 B] 
(3) In the instant case, the High Court arrogated to itself the powers of 
a court of appeal which it did not possess under the law and has exceeded i•s 
jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. There was nothing so grosslv 
wrong and unjust or shocking the Court's "conscience" that it was absolutelv 
necessary in the interest of justice for the High Court to step in under Art. 227 
of the Constitution, and interfere with the conclusions of facts. [800 C-D] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 1972. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 22-6-72 
of the Bombay High Court in Special Application No. 1441of1968. 
R. R. Zaiwala, K. l. John and J. S. Sinha for the Appellant. 
V. S. Desai, P. B. Agarwala and B. R. Agarwala for Respondent 
No. 1. 
H 
/ 
A 
B 
c 
79 8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GosWAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in an application under 
Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of Feb-
ruary 29,, 1968, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court 
at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree of July 22, 1962, of 
the Small Causes Court at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree 
of July 22, 1962, of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Suit No. 4271 
of 1959 dismissing the respondent's suit. 
D 
There is no dispute in this appeal that the appellant is the tenant and 
the first respondent is the landlord. 
It is not necessary to describe th,, 
history of the assignment of the tenancy as well as the transfer of 
the 
ownership of the premises to the first respondent from his father who 
was the original landlord under which another party continu~d as tenant 
till May 1, 1951, when the present appellant became the tenant by pur-
chasing the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the 
stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture, etc., from the original tenant, Messrs 
United Tube & Hardware Co. 
The tenancy is in respect of the premises 
being Shop No. I on the ground floor of the building known as "Asghar 
Manzi!" at 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.