KALPESH HEMANTBHAI SHAH versus MANHAR AUTO STORES THROUGH ITS PARTNER & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 01-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 20 
KALPESH HEMANTBHAI SHAH 
V. 
MANHAR AUTO STORES THROUGH ITS PARTNER & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4266-4267 of 2014) 
APRIL 1, 2014. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
C 
Constitution of India. 1950 Articles 226, 227 -
Jurisdiction of High Court under - Held: High Court u/Article 
227 has jurisdiction to correct the error if apparent on the face 
of the record - However, u/Articles 226 and 227, it has no 
jurisdiction to interfere with or alter a finding of fact arrived at 
D by an appellate court - In the instant case, claim of the 
appellant-landlord to use the premises for personal necessity 
was a question of fact which was decided by the appellate 
court in favour of landlord on appreciation of evidence - The 
appellate court came to a definite conclusion that the suit shop 
E was reasonably and bonafidely required by the appellant for 
his use and occupation and it would cause comparative 
hardship to landlord than the tenants if decree of eviction is 
refused - There was no mixed question of law and fact 
involved in the case, much less question of law - The 
F comparative hardship of tenant and landlord is a question of 
fact - In absence of any question of law involved with such 
facts, the High Court has erred in altering such finding under 
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 
The eviction suit filed by the appellant-landlord was 
G dismissed by the civil court. The appellate court allowed 
the appeal of landlord and directed the respondent-tenant 
to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit 
premises to the appellant. 
H 
20 
KALPESH HEMANTBHAI SHAH v. MANHAR AUTO STORES 
21 
THR. ITS PARTNER 
The respondent filed writ petition before the High 
A 
Court which was allowed. The writ appeal thereagainst 
was dismissed. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the 
appellant that the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 
of the Constitution of India had no jurisdiction to sit in 
appeal and set aside the finding of facts arrived at by the 
court below; that it was not a second appeal preferred 
B 
by the respondents, in fact no second appeal was 
maintainable against the appellate court's order in 
absence of any substantial question of law. 
C 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, on the question of 
reasonable and bonafide need, the Trial Court answered 
0 
the issue against the appellant-landlord on the ground 
that the appellant failed to prove his requirement of suit 
premises. The appellate court on appreciation of evidence 
came to a definite conclusion that the appellant is the 
landlord within the meaning of Section 7(5) of the 
Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the suit shop was 
reasonably and bonafidely required by the appellant for 
E 
his use and occupation. The appellate court further held 
that it would cause comparative hardship to appellant 
than the respondents if decree of eviction is refused. In 
light of such observation and finding, the appeal was 
allowed and the respondents-tenants were ordered to 
vacate the suit premises. [Para 8] [24-D-F] 
2. It is well settled that the High Court under Article 
F 
227 of the Constitution of India has jurisdiction to correct 
G 
the error if apparent on the face of the record. But in the 
instant case, the respondents failed to bring on record 
as to what was the error committed by the District Judge 
in deciding the appeal. The claim of the appellant to use 
H 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A the premises for personal necessity is a question of fact 
which was decided by the District Judge on appreciation 
of evidence. There was no mixed question of law and fact 
involved in the case, much less question of law. The 
comparative hardship of tenant and landlord is a question 
B of fact. In absence of any question of law involved with 
such facts, the High Court can not alter such finding 
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 
[Para 11] [25-E-G] 
3. The High Court had no jurisdiction under Articles 
C 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with 
or alter a finding of fact arrived at by an appellate court 
deciding the question of personal necessity of a landlord 
in a landlord-tenant dispute. The order passed by the 
appellate court is restored. [Para 12] [25-G-H; 26-A-B] 
D 
E 
Mohd. Shafi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge 
(VII}, Allahabad and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 226 : 1977(2) SCR 
464 - relied on. 
Ca

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