LexJAGDISH PRASAD versus SMT. ANGOORI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.
.
A
c
216
•
JAGDISH PRASAD
v.
SMT. ANGOORI DEVI
•
March 15, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Cons1itution of lndia-l{rts. 226 & 227-Wrlt of certiorari-Scope a/-
Whether High Court can correct an error oi faCt.
U.P; Act No.13of1972-s.12(J)(b) and 12(2) read withs. 25-1nterpretation
of-Allegation of sub-tenancy-How and by whofn shoUJd be pYored.
Pf0vincia.' ·Small Gause Courts Act,
1887_:_._s~ 25-Revisional furisdiction-
D ·
Scope of
E
F
G
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for ev1ctlon of the appel!ant-:-tenant
in a town in U.P. ob the·ground that the tenant had created a sub-tenancy
of the . premises ·in favour _oT a trading compan·y. The landlord filed a photo-
. graph Showing tbe so'n of the proprietor of the trading company standing in the
shop. Adopting the appro8.ch that if any person othef than a tenant was found
sitting iri the shop, the tenant h~d. to. lead evidence to Show that a 'sitting
person was not a sub-tenant, the small cause court ·Judge assun1ed that there
was a sub-tenancy; held against· the tenant and ordered his eviction.. Allowing
the revision petition filed by the tenant the Additiona 1 :District Judge held .that
it was for the landlord to lead good and positive evidence to prove that the
business in fact at the shop was being carried ·by the trading company and .not
by the tenant himself.
The Additional District JiJdge looked into the evidence
and held against the °landlord. In an application under Art. 227 the High Court
held that under s. 25 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with sec. J2(l)(b) and
s. 12(2) of the aforesaid Act a tenant would be deemed to hav~ sub·let the·
accommodation if he had allowed. it to be occupied by any person wbo was not
a member of his family. The High c:Ourt further held ttlat the Additional
District .Judge exceeded· his juri~diction under s. 25 of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act, 1887 in setting aside the findings of the trial court on ·a mere
re~ap:t)raisal of the evidence on record. Hence this appeal.
.
. Allowing the appeal,
•
HELD : As long as C}>ntrol OVet the premises is kept ;by the tenant and
•
. the business run in the premises is of the tenant, sub~letting flowing from- the
---"I.
."'"
presenco of .a person othcf than the tenant in the shop cannot be as'3umed. The
-· i.
HJJ!i!i Ii U.P. Act No. 13of1972 does not require the Court to assume a sub-tenancy
merely from the fact of presence of an outsider. [2200]
.
•
_,
•
JAGDISH PRASAD v. ANGOORI DEVI (Ranganath Misra, J.)
217
In th~ instant case the. allegation that th~ premises ha-j been sub-let to a
trading company had tO be proved-as a fact by the landford and mei."ely on the
basis of the phcltograph showing the presence of the son of the proprietor of the
trading co~pany within- the room, sub-letting could Opt be ptesume;d. The
approach of the trial Judge was totally vitiated. [120 D-E]
A
The revisional juriSdiction under s. 25 of. th~ Provincial Small Cause Courts
B
Act is not as wide as the appe1late jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Code of Civil ·
Procedure; yet in a case of this type this Court does not think fault could he .
found with the revisional court for. pointing out the legal error committed by the
· • trial court in its approach to -this material aspect. The legal p<Jsition having
been totally misconceived by the trial court and there being an assumption of the
position which the landlord was required to prove by evidence, the revisional
authority was entitled to point out the legal error and rectify the defect.
C
[221B-D]
The jurisdiction to.issue a writ o~ certiorari is a supervisory one and in ex-
ercising it, the court is not entitled to act as a court of ap·pea]. That necessarily
·means that the findings Of fact arrived at by the inferior court or tribunal are
binding. -An error of law apparent on the face of the record could b.e'corrected
b)1" a writ of certiorari~ but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to
be. [22lF-G]
Syed Yakaab v. K.S: Radhakrishnan & Ors., [l964] 5 S.C.R. 64, referred
to.
In the in.Stant cas~ the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering"'
with the order of the Additional· District Judge. [22lG]
•
C1VIL -APPELLATB JURISbICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2147
of 1980.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
'
the 19th August, 1980, of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.
No. 7578 of 1979 .
.
'
.
Pramod Swarup for tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.