MOHD. INAM versus SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 64 · Decided: 26-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
MOHD. INAM
v.
SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2020)
JUNE 26, 2020
[NAVIN SINHA AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and
Eviction) Act, 1972:
ss. 12(1)(b) and 16(1)(b) – Application by land-lord seeking
declaration of vacancy u/s. 16(1)(b) – Alleging that the tenant had
sub-let the tenanted premises – In the inspection report of the
premises it was stated that the tenant was residing in the premises
alongwith his sons, brother’s son and their families – Rent Control
and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant – In writ petition
challenging the order declaring the premises vacant, High Court
granted liberty to the tenant to challenge the same after the final
order would be passed u/s. 16 – Final order was passed in favour
of land-lord – Revision filed against the final order as well as the
order declaring vacancy – District Judge allowed the Revision,
setting aside both the orders – Writ petition against the order of
District Judge was allowed holding inter alia that vacancy could not
have been challenged alongwith final order – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: In view of judgment in *Achal Misra case, it was
open to the tenant to challenge the vacancy order along with final
order in Revision u/s. 18 – Since the tenant was residing along with
his sons, brother’s son and their families i.e. his family members,
s.12(1)(b) would not get attracted – Thus the Authority’s (Rent
Control and Eviction Officer) exercise of its jurisdiction was either
illegal or with material irregularity – Therefore, the District Judge
was justified in exercise of its Revisional power in interfering with
the order of the Authority –  The exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 227
by High Court was unwarranted and unjustified – Constitution of
India – Art. 227.
Revision:
Revisional power – Scope of – Held: While exercising
Revisional power, what is required to be seen is whether the order
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 64
64
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
under challenge is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding
precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to
consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn
from the facts proved is such that no person could arrive.
Constitution of India:
Art. 227 – Jurisdiction under – Nature and Scope of – Held:
Though the powers u/Art. 227 are wide, they must be exercised
sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within
the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors – In the
guise of exercising jurisdiction u/Art. 227, the High Court cannot
convert itself into a court of appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has patently erred in holding,
that the revision entertained by the District Judge against the
vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 along with the final order of release
dated 31.5.2007 was not tenable. The High Court has totally erred
in observing, that the order of the High Court dated 23.8.2006
dismissing the writ petition had attained finality since it was not
challenged before this Court. The High Court ought to have taken
into consideration, that though the vacancy order was challenged
in a writ petition, the High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006,
while dismissing the writ petition had reserved the right of the
petitioners (appellant and proforma respondent No.3 herein)
before it to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order
passed under Section 16. The observation that the High Court in
its earlier order dated 23.8.2006, could not have granted liberty
to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order is also
contrary to the settled principles of judicial propriety. [Para 16]
[79-C-E]
1.2 In the present case, the appellant and deceased original
tenant had rightly filed a writ petition challenging the order of
vacancy dated 4.6.2003. Though the appellant and deceased
original tenant could have waited till passing of the final order
u/s. 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, they had in fact challenged the
vacancy order before the High Court in a writ petition. The High
Court vide order dated 23.8.2006 had specifically granted them
MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order
in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case 

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