VENKATLAL G. PITTIE & ANR. versus BRIGHT BROS. (PVT.) LTD.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 21-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
' 
VENKATLAL G. PITTIE & ANR. 
v. 
BRIGHT BROS. (PVT.) LTD. 
JULY 21, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Art. 227-Scope of interference by High 
Court with regard to findings of facts by lower courts and inferior 
tribunals. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Cl.(P) of s. 108-The question 
whether a structure put up by a tenant is a permanent one or not depends 
upon the facts of each case and no hard andfast rule can be laid down. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellants, who had let out the premises in question to the 
respondent tiled a suit for eviction inter alia on the groood that the 
tenant had erected ooaothorlsed structures of a permanent nature in 
D 
violation of the provisions of cl. (p) of s. 108 of the Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882 and s. 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1974 and was using the premises for un-
authorised purposes. The alleged permanent structures consisted of 
lofts and rooms which had been constructed by sinking pillars and 
stanchions into the flooring and the tenant admitted that these had been 
E 
constructed after it bad taken the premises from the landlord. After 
discussing the evidence tendered in detail, including the deposition of 
the architect who had prepared the plan of the constructions in question 
and who had deposed that the constructions consisted of permanent 
structures, the Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the 
structures were of a permanent nature and ordered eviction of the 
F 
tenant on the groood of permanent construction. The respondent's 
appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small 
Causes which, on a detailed reappraisal of the evidence on record, not 
only conftrmed the decree for eviction on the ground of permanent 
construction bot granted eviction on the groood of change of user as 
-+ well. The respondent went in appeal against the order of the appellate G 
court. The High Court, dealing with the matter under Art. 227 of the 
Constitution, reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below and 
allowed the respondent's petition. 
Allowing the appeal and restoring the order of the lower appellate 
court, 
H 
593 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. (a) Interference by the High Courts under Art. 227 of 
the Constitution must be within limits. This question has been con-
sidered by this Court from time to time and principles laid down. The 
power under Art. 227 is one of judicial superintendence and it cannot 
he exercised to upset the conclusions of facts, however erroneous these 
may be. It is possible that another Court may be able to take a different 
B 
view of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner, if 
it determinedly chooses to do so. That will not be justice administered 
according to law to which courts are committed. [6050-E] 
(b) In exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution, 
the High Court can go into questions of facts or look into the evidence if 
C 
justice so requires it. But the High Court should decline to exercise that 
jurisdiction to look into the facts in the absence of clear-cut reasons 
where the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence. The 
High Court should not interfere with a rmding within the jurisdiction of 
the inferior tribunal or court except where the rmding is perverse in 
law, in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law 
D could have come to such a finding, or there is misdirection in law, or 
view of fact has been taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence, or 
the findiog is not based on any material evidence or it resulted In 
manifest Injustice. Except to the extent indicated above the High Conrt 
has no jurisdiction. [606B-D] 
E 
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v. Mallikarjun 
Bhavanappa Tirumale, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890; India Pipe Fitting Co. v. 
Fakruddin M.A. Baker & Anr., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 797; Ganpat Ladha v. 
Shashikant VL<hnu Shinde, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 198; Mrs. Labhkuwar 
Bhagwani Shah & Ors. v. Janardan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr., [1982] 3 
S.C.C. 514 and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, 
F 
[1986] 4 S.C.C. 447; referred to. 
2. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determining the 
question whether a particular structure put up by the tenant is a perma-
nent structure for the purpose of cl. (p) of s. 108 of the Transfer of 
Property Act. 1882 as it is dependent on the facts of each case. One m

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