# Usman v. Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 397
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-07
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 1205 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/usman-v-smt-rajeshwari-anr-51018
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) -
Section 21(1)(a) - Bona fide need -
Comparative hardship - Petition under
Article
227
challenging
concurrent
findings
of
Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate Authority allowing landlord's
application for release of shop for setting
up chamber - Landlord was an advocate
by profession - Tenant claimed shop was
unsuitable and concealed facts regarding
landlord's
existing
chamber
-
Both
authorities below held landlord's need as
genuine and bona fide - Tenant failed to
deny
specific
averments
in
release
application; adverse inference drawn -
Order VIII Rule 5(1) CPC- Comparative
hardship also decided against tenant as no
alternative accommodation was explored.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 -
Scope
and
limitation
-
Interference
permissible only in cases of jurisdictional
error,
grave
dereliction
of
duty,
or
manifest injustice - Reappreciation of
evidence or correction of mere factual
errors not permissible - Reaffirmed by
catena
of
Supreme
Court
decisionspetition dismissed. (Paras 11, 14, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21 to 31 and 32)
HELD:
In the opinion of the Court since the tenant/
petitioner has not specifically denied the
averments in para 5 of the release application
an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against him and the fact St.d in para 5 of the
release application would be treated to have
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been admitted. Order VIII Rule 5 (1) CPC
provides that every allegation of fact in the
plaint if not denied specifically in the written
St.ment shall be taken to be admitted by the
defendant. I am fortified by the view taken by
the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra
Jain Vs Jai Krishna Goswamy & ors.reported in
1993 (2) ARC 484. (para 11)

The scope of judicial review in such matters
where the orders of courts below are assailed
before this Court in a writ petition under Article
226/227 of the Constitution is very limited. This
power involves a duty on the High Court to keep
the inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they
do what their duty requires and that they do it
in a legal manner. But this power does not vest
the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all species of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be
restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty
and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of
law or justice, where grave injustice would be
done unless the High Court interferes. (Para 14)

The above discussion leaves no scope for
interference with the orders impugned in this
writ petition. I have no doubt in holding that
this petition lacks substance and is devoid of
merits. (Para 32)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Usman Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr.
397

20. The initial FIR that was lodged on
15.10.2024 by the police official concerned
related to a general information regarding
the incident which happened during the
immersion procession of Devi Durga idols
where one person was shot as a result
whereof crowd got angry and destroyed the
shops of the other community through
stone-pelting and setting them on fire
whereas the FIR that was lodged on
18.10.2024 at 05:11 pm by the public
representative, the sitting MLA of Mahasi
Constituency with regard to the incident
where the named accused alongwith others
were holding Dharna Pradarshan with the
body of the deceased-victim and not letting
the District Administration and the Police
Authorities from carrying out their public
duties regarding the autopsy of the
deceased-victim by taking his body to the
mortuary for post mortem examination.
There was firing of gun shot in the air also.

21. Prima facie, we do not find that
the second FIR which was lodged on
18.10.2024 and which has been challenged
in these petitions to be a part of the same
transaction. It is related to a subsequent
development and the Section of the B.N.S.
invoked in the same are not identical and
do not relate to the same incident or the
same accused.

22. We, therefore, do not find any
good ground to show interference, as
prayed for, in these petitions, hence, they
are dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 397
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1205 of 2024
(Civil)

Usman ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lalit Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Smt. Shreya
Gupta

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) -
Section 21(1)(a) - Bona fide need -
Comparative hardship - Petition under
Article
227
challenging
concurrent
findings
of
Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate Authority allowing landlord's
application for release of shop for setting
up chamber - Landlord was an advocate
by profession - Tenant claimed shop was
unsuitable and concealed facts regarding
landlord's
existing
chamber
-
Both
authorities below held landlord's need as
genuine and bona fide - Tenant failed to
deny
specific
averments
in
release
application; adverse inference drawn -
Order VIII Rule 5(1) CPC- Comparative
hardship also decided against tenant as no
alternative accommodation was explored.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 -
Scope
and
limitation
-
Interference
permissible only in cases of jurisdictional
error,
grave
dereliction
of
duty,
or
manifest injustice - Reappreciation of
evidence or correction of mere factual
errors not permissible - Reaffirmed by
catena
of
Supreme
Court
decisionspetition dismissed. (Paras 11, 14, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21 to 31 and 32)
HELD:
In the opinion of the Court since the tenant/
petitioner has not specifically denied the
averments in para 5 of the release application
an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against him and the fact St.d in para 5 of the
release application would be treated to have
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been admitted. Order VIII Rule 5 (1) CPC
provides that every allegation of fact in the
plaint if not denied specifically in the written
St.ment shall be taken to be admitted by the
defendant. I am fortified by the view taken by
the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra
Jain Vs Jai Krishna Goswamy & ors.reported in
1993 (2) ARC 484. (para 11)

The scope of judicial review in such matters
where the orders of courts below are assailed
before this Court in a writ petition under Article
226/227 of the Constitution is very limited. This
power involves a duty on the High Court to keep
the inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they
do what their duty requires and that they do it
in a legal manner. But this power does not vest
the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all species of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be
restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty
and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of
law or justice, where grave injustice would be
done unless the High Court interferes. (Para 14)

The above discussion leaves no scope for
interference with the orders impugned in this
writ petition. I have no doubt in holding that
this petition lacks substance and is devoid of
merits. (Para 32)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pawan Kumar Jain Vs Sushila Devi Jain &
ors.reported in 2021 (1) ARC 742

2. Suresh Chandra Jain Vs Jai Krishna Goswamy
& ors.reported in 1993 (2) ARC 484

3. D. N. Banerji Vs P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58

4. Waryam Singh & anr.Vs Amarnath & anr.AIR
1954 SC 215

5. Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs Mahendra Nath
Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895

6. Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs the St. of Bihar &
ors., AIR 1971 SC 746
7. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs Gujarat Steel
Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896

8.
Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs Pratapsing
Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576

9. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Pravinbhai Jasbhai
Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300

10. M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & anr.Vs Sub-Judicial
Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749

11. Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors.Vs Vinayak
N. Joshi & ors.(1999) 1 SCC 47

12. Rena Drego Vs Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998)
3 SCC 341

13. Chandra Bhushan Vs Beni Prasad & ors.,
(1999) 1 SCC 70

14. Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors.Vs
Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171

15. Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs Dyes & Chemical
Workers' Union & anr.,(1999) 2 SCC 143

16. U.O.I. & ors.Vs Himmat Singh Chahar,
(1999) 4 SCC 521

17. Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing
cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6
SCC 82

18. Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs Bhaskar
Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931

19. Indian Overseas Bank Vs Indian Overseas
Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4
SCC 245

20. U.O.I. Vs Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472

21. Maharashtra Vs Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4

22. Extrella Rubber Vs Dass ESt. (P) Ltd., (2001)
8 SCC 97

23. Omeph Mathai & ors.Vs M. Abdul Khader,
(2002) 1 SCC 319

24. Surya Dev Rai Vs Ram Chander Rai &
ors.(2003) 6 SCC 675
11 All. Usman Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr.
399
25. Jasbir Singh Vs St. of Pun. (2006) 8 SCC 294

26. Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr.Vs Rajendra
Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329

27. Kokkanda B. Poondacha & ors.Vs K.D.
Ganapathi & anr.AIR 2011 SC 1353

28. Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs Imandi Anasuya
(2011) 12 SCC 650

29. Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & ors.Vs
Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & ors.(2010) 2 SCC
432

30. T.G.N. Kumar Vs St. of Kerala & ors.(2011) 2
SCC 772

31. Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF & ors.Vs
Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244

32. U.O.I. Vs R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned
counsel for the tenant/petitioner and Smt.
Shreya Gupta learned counsel appearing for
the landlord/respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India at the instance of
the tenant has been filed questioning the
judgment and order dated 09.11.2023
passed by the Additional District Judge,
Court No. 1, Hathras in UPUB Appeal No.
01 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the
Appeal of the Tenant/ petitioner has been
rejected and the judgment and order of the
Prescribed Authority dated 06.04.2021
allowing the application of the respondents/
landlords under Section 21 (1) (a) of the
UP Act No. 13 of 1972 has been upheld.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication
of the lis between the parties briefly stated
are that the landlord/ respondents instituted
a P.A. Case being P.A. Case No. 13 of
2014 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 setting up a bona fide
need for the shop situate in Gali Kaunjdan
Punjabi Market, Hathras under the tenancy
of the petitioner. It was stated that the
release was sought on the ground that the
respondent no. 2 is an Advocate by
profession and requires the shop for setting
up his chamber. The tenant has no
requirement of the shop and is only
occupying it to get Pagri. He carries on his
business
in
Mathura.
The
release
application was contested by the petitioner
denying the plaint case stating that the shop
is very small measuring 8x10 Feet and not
at all suitable for establishing an Advocate
Chamber. It was also stated that the tenant
would
suffer
greater
hardship
in
comparison to the landlord and prayed that
the release application be dismissed.

4. The Prescribed Authority/ Civil
Judge, Hathras after due appreciation of the
materials on record allowed the release
application vide order dated 06.04.2021
holding
the
need
of
the
landlord/
respondents as bona fide and genuine and
the question of comparative hardship was
also decided in favour of the landlord/
respondents and against the petitioner. The
Appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the order of the Prescribed Authority being
P.A. Appeal No. 1 of 2021 was also
dismissed vide judgment and order dated
09.11.2023. Both the orders have been
assailed in this petition.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
tenant/petitioner has assailed the impugned
orders on the ground that the learned
Prescribed Authority without considering
and appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record upheld the need of the
landlord/ respondents holding it to be bona
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fide. Placing reliance upon a decision of
this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar
Jain vs. Sushila Devi Jain and 3 others
reported in 2021 (1) ARC 742, learned
counsel for the tenant/ petitioner submits
that the landlord is required to first prove
and establish his bona fide need for the
accommodation in dispute under the
tenancy of the tenant. Elaborating his
arguments further learned counsel for the
tenant/ petitioner contends that the need
pleaded by the landlord should be natural,
real sincere and honest and should not be
merely a pretence or pretext to evict a
tenant. A mere statement or a pleadings on
the part of the landlord that he bona fidely
required the said building for a purpose
specified in the pleadings is not sufficient
but the requirement has to be proved by the
landlord by bringing sufficient evidence
before the Court. The burden is on the
landlord to establish his case affirmatively.
Learned counsel for the tenant/ petitioner
has invited the attention of this Court to the
objections filed by the tenant/ petitioner to
the release application under Section 21 (I)
(a) to demonstrate that the landlord/
respondent no. 2 for quite some time has
been practising law and has a chamber
existing in which he is carrying of his
practice as an Advocate. This fact has
deliberately been concealed. The need for
the accommodation under the tenancy of
the petitioner is thus not bona fide. Besides
by way of an evidence affidavit/ paper no.
32 C has established the fact that the
landlord/ respondent no. 2 has been
practising as an Advocate for the last 2
years from his chamber set up in his house.
In his own affidavit the petitioner has stated
that the landlord/ respondents have already
obtained possession of a shop under the
tenancy of one Dore Lal which can be
utilized for setting up a chamber.

6. Learned counsel for the tenant/
petitioner has further argued that the
learned Prescribed Authority while dealing
with the issue of bona fide need ventured
into the aspect that the tenant/ petitioner
had not searched for any alternative
accommodation after filing of the release
application and proceeded to hold that the
need of the landlord/ respondent was bona
fide and genuine. It is submitted that the
approach
of
the
learned
Prescribed
Authority was patently erroneous inasmuch
as the consideration for searching out
alternate accommodation would be relevant
for the purposes of comparative hardship
and not for determining the bona fide need.

7. It has also been argued that the
Appellate Authority manifestly erred in
rejecting the Appeal and upholding the
order of the Prescribed Authority. It is
submitted that the Appellate Authority is
required to record, the findings dealing
with all issues as well as fact and with the
oral and documentary evidence led by the
parties. It is argued that the findings of the
Appellate Authority falls short of the
requirements under the law and as such is
liable to be set aside.

8. The petition has been opposed by
Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel, who
has put in appearance on behalf of the
landlord/respondents. Ms. Shreya Gupta,
learned counsel submits that the petition is
concluded by findings of fact in as much as
both the Prescribed Authority and the
Appellate Authority have held the need set
up by the landlord/ respondents to be bona
fide
and
genuine.
The
comparative
hardship has also been decided in favour of
the landlord/ respondents and against the
tenant/ petitioner. No interference
is
warranted by this Hon'ble Court and the
11 All. Usman Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr.
401
petition is liable to be dismissed at the
threshold.

9. I have heard the leaned counsels for
the parties and have perused the records.

10.
A
perusal
of
he
Release
application under Section 21 (I) (a) of the
UP Act No. 13 of 1972 reveals that the
release was sought setting up bona fide
needs for the shop under the tenancy of the
tenant/ petitioner for starting a lawyer
chamber for the landlord respondent no. 2
who admittedly was a practising lawyer. It
was also stated in the release application in
para 5 thereof that the tenant/ petitioner is
not in need of the accommodation and has
retained the possession only for the
purposes of Pagri and carries on his
business in Mathura. A perusal of the
written statement of the petitioner filed to
the release application the court finds that
no reply has been given to the averments
made in para 5 of the release application.
The factum that the petitioner does not
require the accommodation and that he
carried on business in Mathura has not been
controverted.

11. In the opinion of the Court since
the tenant/ petitioner has not specifically
denied the averments in para 5 of the
release application an adverse inference
is liable to be drawn against him and the
fact stated in para 5 of the release
application would be treated to have been
admitted. Order VIII Rule 5 (1) CPC
provides that every allegation of fact in
the plaint if not denied specifically in the
written statement shall be taken to be
admitted by the defendant. I am fortified
by the view taken by the Apex Court in
the case of Suresh Chandra Jain vs. Jai
Krishna Goswamy and others reported
in 1993 (2) ARC 484.

12. The records further reveal that the
release application was resisted by stating
that the landlord/ respondent no. 2 has
concealed the fact that he is already in
possession of a chamber which he is
utilising in his residential house and as such
the need set up is not genuine. However,
the learned Prescribed Authority while
dealing with the issue of bona fide need has
found that the landlord/ respondents
established their need for the shop in
dispute by oral and documentary evidence
of Dinesh Kumar Bansal (Landlord/
Respondent no. 2) as P.W.-1 , Ramji Lal
Verma as P.W.-2, and Ghanshyam Das as
P.W.-3. The tenant petitioner filed his own
evidence affidavit and got examined
Mahendra Singh as D.W.-3. The Prescribed
Authority held that the tenant/ petitioner
could not establish the fact that the landlord
respondent no. 2 has already established his
lawyer chamber. The Prescribed Authority
also found that the tenant/ petitioner could
not dictate how the landlord respondents
may utilize certain property available with
them to satisfy their need. It also found that
the tenant petitioner had not made efforts to
search out alternate accommodation after
filing of the release application and
accordingly
decided
the
question
of
comparative hardship against the tenant/
petitioner. The release application was
accordingly allowed.

13. In Appeal, the Court finds that the
question of bona fide need of the
landlord/respondents have been upheld.
The question of comparative hardship has
also been decided against the tenant/
petitioner on the ground that the tenant
petitioner did not search for any alternate
accommodation. Several authorities have
been taken note of by the Appellate
Authority while upholding the findings of
the Prescribed Authority. The Court does
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not deem it appropriate to burden this
judgment by reiterating all the decisions
relied upon suffice is to mention that
having gone through both the judgments at
length, I do not find any manifest error
therein warranting interference in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

14. The scope of judicial review in such
matters where the orders of courts below are
assailed before this Court in a writ petition
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is
very limited. This power involves a duty on
the High Court to keep the inferior courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their authority
and to see that they do what their duty
requires and that they do it in a legal manner.
But this power does not vest the High Court
with any unlimited prerogative to correct all
species of hardship or wrong decisions made
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to
cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant
abuse of fundamental principle of law or
justice, where grave injustice would be done
unless the High Court interferes.

15. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee
1953 SC 58 the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave
miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of
law calling for intervention, it is not for the
High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution to interfere."

16. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court
examined the scope of Article 227 of the
Constitution in Waryam Singh and another
Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215
and made following observations at p. 571 :

"This power of superintendence
conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out
by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways
Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951
Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly
and only in appropriate cases in order to
keep the Subordinate Courts within the
bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors".

17. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd.
Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the
Apex Court held that this Court has very
limited scope under Article 227 of the
Constitution and even the errors of law
cannot be corrected in exercise of power of
judicial review under Article 227 of the
Constitution. The power can be used
sparingly when it comes to the conclusion
that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its
jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous
presumption of jurisdiction. The High
Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative
to correct all species of hardship or wrong
decision. For interference, there must be a
case of flagrant abuse of fundamental
principles of law or where order of the
Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave
injustice.

18. For interference under Article 227,
the finding of facts recorded by the
Authority should be found to be perverse or
patently erroneous and de hors the factual
and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran
Chandra
Bag
Vs.
Mahendra
Nath
Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand
Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors.,
AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes
Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896;
Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing
Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6
SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs.
Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7
SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5
11 All. Usman Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr.
403
SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat
& ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999)
1 SCC 47).

19. It is well settled that power under
Article
227
is
of
the
judicial
superintendence which cannot be used to
up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever
erroneous those may be, unless such
conclusions
are
so
perverse
or
so
unreasonable that no Court could ever have
reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs.
Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341;
Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad &
ors.,
(1999)
1 SCC
70; Savitrabai
Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand
Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171; and
Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes &
Chemical Workers' Union & Anr.,(1999)
2 SCC 143).

20. Power under Article 227 of the
Constitution is not in the nature of power of
appellate authority enabling re-appreciation
of evidence. It should not alter the
conclusion reached by the Competent
Statutory Authority merely on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union
of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh
Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521).

21. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Coopeative Marketing cum Processing
Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
there is no justification for the High
Court to substitute its view for the
opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below
as the same is not permissible in
proceedings under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution.

22.
In
Mohan
Amba
Prasad
Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer,
AIR 2000 SC 931, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that jurisdiction of High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution is
not
appealable
but
supervisory.
Therefore, it cannot interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by Courts below
unless there is no evidence to support
findings or the findings are totally
perverse.

23. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian
Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union
(2000) 4 SCC 245, the Court observed that it is
impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate
evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on
its own on pure questions of fact for the reason
that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction
over the awards passed by Tribunal. The
findings of fact recorded by the fact finding
authority duly constituted for the purpose
ordinarily should be considered to have become
final. The same cannot be disturbed for the
mere reason of having based on materials or
evidence not sufficient or credible in the
opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings.
At any rate, as long as they are based upon
some material which are relevant for the
purpose no interference is called for. Even on
the ground that there is yet another view which
can reasonably and possibly be taken the High
Court can not interfere.

24. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra
Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence
nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in
place of the findings of Authorities below.

25. Similar view has been reiterated in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors.,
(2001) 1 SCC 4; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97; and
Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul
Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319.
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram
Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC
675, it was held that in exercise of
supervisory power under Article 227, High
Court can correct errors of jurisdiction
committed by subordinate Courts. It also
held that when subordinate court has
assumed a jurisdiction which it does not
have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction
which it does have or jurisdiction though
available is being exercised in a manner not
permitted by law and failure of justice or
grave injustice has occasioned, the Court
may step in to exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it
a writ of certiorari or exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available
to correct mere errors of fact or law unless
error is manifest and apparent on the face
of the proceedings such as when it is based
on clear ignorance or disregard of the
provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or
gross failure of justice has occasioned
thereby.

27. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Court said:

"...while
invoking
the
provisions
of
Article
227
of
the
Constitution, it is provided that the High
Court would exercise such powers most
sparingly and only in appropriate cases in
order to keep the subordinate courts
within the bounds of their authority. The
power of superintendence exercised over
the subordinate courts and tribunals does
not imply that the High Court can
intervene in the judicial functions of the
lower judiciary. The independence of the
subordinate courts in the discharge of
their judicial functions is of paramount
importance, just as the independence of
the superior courts in the discharge of
their judicial functions."

28. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and
another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
(2010) 8 SCC 329, the Court said that
power of interference under Article 227 is
to be kept to the minimum to ensure that
the wheel of justice does not come to a halt
and the fountain of justice remains pure and
unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the
tribunals and Courts subordinate to High
Court. The above authority has been cited
and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha
and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and
another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru
Satyanarayana
Vs.
Imandi
Anasuya
(2011) 12 SCC 650.

29. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs.
& others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle
and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Apex Court
reminded that while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 or 227, High Courts
should not act as if they are exercising an
appellate jurisdiction.

30. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of
Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, the
Court said that power of superintendence
conferred on the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is both
administrative and judicial, but such power
is to be exercised sparingly and only in
appropriate cases in order to keep the
subordinate courts within the bounds of
their authority.

31. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion,
CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar
(2011) 10 SCC 244, Apex Court referring
to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs.
R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed
that only in an extreme case, where on the
face of it there is perversity or irrationality,
there can be judicial review under Articles
226 or 227.
11 All. Km. Gunjan (minor) Vs. Ram Ratan
405

32. The above discussion leaves no
scope for interference with the orders
impugned in this writ petition. I have no
doubt in holding that this petition lacks
substance and is devoid of merits.

33. Dismissed.

34. Interim order, if any, shall stand
vacated.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9641 of 2023
(Criminal)

Km. Gunjan (minor) ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Ratan ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anup Kumar Singh, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Gautam

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ajay Dubey, Sri Shambhu Mani Tripathi,
Sri Apul Mishra

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 -
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule
56(2) - Form 31 - Custody of seized
vehicle - Minor petitioner sole legal heir
of registered owner - Notary sale deed
relied
on
by
respondent
held
untrustworthy - Succession certificate
and RTO authorization in favour of minor
petitioner valid - Held, custody of vehicle
to be restored to minor petitioner -
litigation should not be prolonged to
detriment of minor's rights- Revisional
order set aside-Petition allowed.

HELD:
Considering
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the submissions
advanced by the parties, the order dated
25.8.2023 passed by learned Additional Session
Judge, Court No. 29, Agra passed in Criminal
Revision No. 179 of 2023 (Ram Ratan Vs St. of
U.P. & anr.) is hereby set-aside with the direction
to the Court concerned to handover the custody
of the vehicle immediately to the petitioner
Gunjan (minor) through her legal guardian
Kishan Pal Singh and settle the dispute at the
earliest.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Shambhu Mani Tripathi, Advocate holding
brief of Sri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel
for the respondent no.3, Sri Nand Lal,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. The present writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer to set-aside the
order dated 25.08.2023 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge, Court No. 29,
Agra passed in Criminal Revision No. 179
of 2023 (Ram Ratan vs. State of U.P. and
another) and also direct the learned Trial
Court to release the aforesaid vehicle in
favour of the petitioner.

3. The instant writ petition has been
preferred by the petitioner Km. Gunjan
(minor) aged about 8 years through her
legal, i.e., her maternal grandfather Sri
Kishan Pal Singh.

4. The matter in brief is that the father
of the petitioner namely Late Manvendra
Singh purchased a Bolero Vehicle on
8.4.2019 which was registered through