RANJEET SINGH versus RAVI PRAKASH

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 18-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

..
A 
RANJEET SINGH 
-4. 
v. 
RA VI PRAKASH 
MARCH 18, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
c 
Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972; Section 21(/)(a) & (b)/Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 226 and 
227: 
Suit for eviction of suit premises on ground of bonafide requirement 
and for reconstruction-Municipality had also issued notice for its demolition 
D as it was in dilapidated condition-Dismissed by trial Court-Appeal allowed 
by Appellate Court-Challenge to-High Court set aside the judgment of the 
Appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court-On appeal, Held: The 
High Court acted like an Appellate Court, which is nol permissible in exercise 
y· 
of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226122 7-Hence, the High Court judgment 
set aside and Appellate Court judgment restored 
E 
Appellant-landlord initiated eviction proceedings against respondent-
tenant on grounds of bonajide requirement and for re-construction of the 
premises in question, a shop, as it was in dilapidated condition and that 
the Municipality had already issued a notice for its demolition. Trial Court 
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal, which was 
F allowed by the Appellate Court. The tenant preferred a writ petition. 
Single Judge of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate 
_. 
Court and restored that of the trial Court. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside 
the judgment of the Appellate Court. Though not specifically stated, the 
phraseology employed by the High Court in its judgment goes to show 
.. 
that the High Court has exercised its certiorari jurisdiction in correcting 
" 
the judgment of the Appellate Court. On.its own showing, the High Court 
H 
250 
RAN.IEET SINGH v. RAVI PRAKASH [LAHOTI. .I.] 
251 
has acted like an Appellate Court which was not permissible for it to do A 
under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. The approach of the 
High Court cannot be countenanced. Hence, the judgment of the High 
Court is set aside and that of the Appellate Court is restored. 
[252-D; G-H; 253-A) 
Surya Dev Raj v. Ram Chander Raj and Ors., [20031 6 SCC 675, relied B 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I685 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I0.7.2001 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 24448 of 1997. 
C 
Ms. V. Mahana for the Appellant. 
Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant is the landlord-owner of the suit premises in occupation of 
respondent as the tenant. Proceedings for eviction of the respondent were 
initiated by the landlord on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (b) E 
of sub-section (I) of Section 2 I of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation 
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The 
appellant's case was that the premises in occupation of the respondent were 
required bona fide by the appellant for his own business of fertilizers and 
agricultural implements. It was also alleged that the shop in occupation of F. 
the respondent was in a dilapidated condition. It was an old construction. 
Cracks had developed in the walls and the lintel. The corners of walls had 
given way. The local municipality had served a notice on the appellant on 
27 .02.1985 to demolish the verandah and lintel. Hence, it was necessary to 
demolish the shop and reconstruct the same. 
The Prescribed Authority, which is the Trial Court, vide its judgment 
dated 15 .02 .1989 directed the appellant's application to be dismissed. The 
appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed. Vide the judgment dated 
17.07.1997, the learned Additional District Judge held the availability of both 
the grounds of eviction in favour of the appellant. The learned ADJ entered 
G 
into re-appreciation of evidence and assigned reasons to show why the findings H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A arrived at by the Trial Court could not have been sustained. In the shop, in 
occupation of the respondent, he was running the business of fertilizers and 
agricultural implements and thus it could not be denied that the shop was 
suited for the business which the appellant proposed to have in the premises. 
There were two reports by two Local Commissioners, submitted on spot 
B i

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