The Supreme Court has once again said that while hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court cannot convert itself into an Appellate Court.
In this case, the Controller of Rent and Eviction Officer, while approving the application of the owner of the disputed property, passed the final order to vacate the disputed premises under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Tenancy, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
The aforesaid order was revoked by the District Judge while granting the revision petition filed by the tenant. The High Court had granted a petition filed by the owner of the disputed asset under Article 227 of the Constitution and set aside the order of the District Judge on the ground that the District Judge hearing the joint revision petition against the order vacating the disputed property and the final order By accepting for, the law was wrong.
A division bench of Justice Naveen Sinha and Justice BR Gavai held that the High Court ignored the legal position set out in the judgment of the three-judge bench in ‘Achal Mishra v. Ramashankar Singh’ case, specifically stating that even if one Even if the party does not challenge the order of eviction through writ petition, that party’s option to challenge the eviction order under section 18 with the final order issued under section 16 of the relevant law remains open. The bench said that in view of the matter, it was perfectly justifiable to interfere in the order issued by the District Judge’s rent controller and eviction officer.
By passing the High Court’s order, the Bench also said that it (the High Court) had exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution by interfering with the logical order issued by the District Judge.
The bench said: “It is a founding principle of the law that the High Court cannot convert itself into an Appellate Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is also a uniformly propounded principle that supervisory rights allow subordinate tribunals to exercise their jurisdiction. To keep within and monitor that they continue to abide by the law. It also states that the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution are broad, but they are used in a restrained manner and only to subordinate courts and tribunals. It should be done to keep them within the purview of their jurisdiction, not just for rectification.”
The court said that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in this case was clearly undesirable and unjustified. Case Name: Mohammad Inam vs Sanjay Kumar Singhal
Deepanshi Rajput 