# INDIA PIPE FITTING CO v. FAKRUDDIN M.A. BAKER AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 797
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-11-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 1972
- **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/india-pipe-fitting-co-v-fakruddin-m-a-baker-and-anr-7330
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of J11dia, 1950-Powers of High
Power of Superintend'!nce, cannot be exercised to
facts .. however erroneous, they n1ay be.
Court
upset
under
Art. 227the conclusions of
A
B
The appellant who carries on the business of hardware and pipe-fitting by
purchasing the good-will and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the
stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture
etc. ffom the original
tenant becan1e
the
C
tenant in shop No. 1 on the ground floor of the suit buildng known as "Asghar
Manzil" in Nagdevi Street Bombay, "predominantly a locality for the business
of hardwares and pipe-fitting",
The eviction suit filed by the respondent in the
Small Causes Court on various grounds including bonafide and reasonable requirement was dismissed.
The court held that greater hardship could be caused
to the tenant, if the decr:e of ejectment was passed.
An apepal against the
said order having failed, the respondent moved the High Court Art. 227.
The
High Court allowed it interfering with the concurrent findings of
facts and
held
that the landlord's requirement was reasonable and bonafide and there
D
was no question of greater hardship to the tenant.
Allowing the tenant's appeal by special leave the Court :
HELD : 1. The limitation of the Court while exercisin2 power under Art.
227 of the Constitution is well settled.
Power under Art. 227 is one of judicial
superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset the conclusions of facts, however, erroneous these may be. [799 B-C]
JVarya1n Singh &: Anr. v. An1ar11ath and A nr., [1954] SCR 565; Nag~ndra
Nath Bora and Anr. v. The Conunissioner of Hills Division
and
Appeals,
Assa111 and Ors.,· [1958] S.C.R. 1240 and Bathutn1al Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Anr., [1975] 1 S.C.C. 858 reiterated.
E
(2) It is possible that another Court may be able to take a different view
of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner, if it is determinedly choose-s to do so.
That will not be justice administered according tL
F
Jaw to which Courts are committed not\vithstanding dissertation in season and
out of season, about philosophies. [800 B]
(3) In the instant case, the High Court arrogated to itself the powers of
a court of appeal which it did not possess under the law and has exceeded i•s
jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. There was nothing so grosslv
wrong and unjust or shocking the Court's "conscience" that it was absolutelv
necessary in the interest of justice for the High Court to step in under Art. 227
of the Constitution, and interfere with the conclusions of facts. [800 C-D]
G

## Text

I
•
797
INDIA PIPE FITTING CO.
v.
FAKRUDDIN M.A. BAKER AND ANR.
November 4, 1977
(P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Constitution of J11dia, 1950-Powers of High
Power of Superintend'!nce, cannot be exercised to
facts .. however erroneous, they n1ay be.
Court
upset
under
Art. 227the conclusions of
A
B
The appellant who carries on the business of hardware and pipe-fitting by
purchasing the good-will and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the
stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture
etc. ffom the original
tenant becan1e
the
C
tenant in shop No. 1 on the ground floor of the suit buildng known as "Asghar
Manzil" in Nagdevi Street Bombay, "predominantly a locality for the business
of hardwares and pipe-fitting",
The eviction suit filed by the respondent in the
Small Causes Court on various grounds including bonafide and reasonable requirement was dismissed.
The court held that greater hardship could be caused
to the tenant, if the decr:e of ejectment was passed.
An apepal against the
said order having failed, the respondent moved the High Court Art. 227.
The
High Court allowed it interfering with the concurrent findings of
facts and
held
that the landlord's requirement was reasonable and bonafide and there
D
was no question of greater hardship to the tenant.
Allowing the tenant's appeal by special leave the Court :
HELD : 1. The limitation of the Court while exercisin2 power under Art.
227 of the Constitution is well settled.
Power under Art. 227 is one of judicial
superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset the conclusions of facts, however, erroneous these may be. [799 B-C]
JVarya1n Singh &: Anr. v. An1ar11ath and A nr., [1954] SCR 565; Nag~ndra
Nath Bora and Anr. v. The Conunissioner of Hills Division
and
Appeals,
Assa111 and Ors.,· [1958] S.C.R. 1240 and Bathutn1al Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Anr., [1975] 1 S.C.C. 858 reiterated.
E
(2) It is possible that another Court may be able to take a different view
of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner, if it is determinedly choose-s to do so.
That will not be justice administered according tL
F
Jaw to which Courts are committed not\vithstanding dissertation in season and
out of season, about philosophies. [800 B]
(3) In the instant case, the High Court arrogated to itself the powers of
a court of appeal which it did not possess under the law and has exceeded i•s
jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. There was nothing so grosslv
wrong and unjust or shocking the Court's "conscience" that it was absolutelv
necessary in the interest of justice for the High Court to step in under Art. 227
of the Constitution, and interfere with the conclusions of facts. [800 C-D]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 1972.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 22-6-72
of the Bombay High Court in Special Application No. 1441of1968.
R. R. Zaiwala, K. l. John and J. S. Sinha for the Appellant.
V. S. Desai, P. B. Agarwala and B. R. Agarwala for Respondent
No. 1.
H
/
A
B
c
79 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GosWAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in an application under
Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of February 29,, 1968, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court
at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree of July 22, 1962, of
the Small Causes Court at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree
of July 22, 1962, of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Suit No. 4271
of 1959 dismissing the respondent's suit.
D
There is no dispute in this appeal that the appellant is the tenant and
the first respondent is the landlord.
It is not necessary to describe th,,
history of the assignment of the tenancy as well as the transfer of
the
ownership of the premises to the first respondent from his father who
was the original landlord under which another party continu~d as tenant
till May 1, 1951, when the present appellant became the tenant by purchasing the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the
stock-in-trade, furniture, fixture, etc., from the original tenant, Messrs
United Tube & Hardware Co.
The tenancy is in respect of the premises
being Shop No. I on the ground floor of the building known as "Asghar
Manzi!" at 146, Nagdevi Street, Bombay, "predominantly a locality for
the business of hardwares and pipe-fitting".
The Manzi! has a ground
floor and three other storeys.
The entire property has been let out by
the respondent to different persons.
The appellant carries on the business of hardware and pipe-fitting in this shop.
The respondent sought
to evict the appellant by instituting a suit in the Small Causes Court on
March 17, 1959,, founding his claim on several grounds but we
arc
confined in this appeal only to the respondent's bana fide and reasonable
requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation "as
an
architect and engineering designer" to run his "office-cnm-studio-cumshow-room" therein.
"The dimensions of the suit premises are 5!(9)
( 63) feet".
The other grounds, namely, of subletting and irregular
payment of rent were given up.
The trial court dismissed the suit on
July 2, 1962, holding that the premises were not reasonably and bona
fide required by the respondent.
The court also held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if the decree in ejcctment were passed.
The respondent's appeal to t'ie Appellate Bench of the Small Causes
Court met with the same fate and the findings of the trial court
were
affirmed.
That led to the application under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court at the instance of the landlord.
This time
the landlord was successful as the learned single Judge of the High Court
allowed the petition on June 23, 1972, interfering with the concurrent
findings of fact and held that the landlord's requirement was reasonable
and bona fide. and there was no question of greater hardship to the tenant.
E
F
G
The learned Judge of the High Court observed :
''In iny judgment, every one of the reasons and the entire
H
approach of the learned Judges of the appellate Bench was
per verse and shows a lack of awareness of the real conditions
of accommodation in Bo1nbay. at all tin1es tnatcrial to the suit
and c\·en no\v,"
j
-
\
' .·
-
-
i
INDIA PIPE co. v. FAKRUDDIN (Goswami, J.)
799
The learned Judge further observed that "it seems that in the view
of the learned trial Judge, richer the man greater the hardship to him
and poorer the man lesser the hardship to him ...... ",
The appellant made a grievance before us that the learned J u<lge of
the High Court did not grant any time to him to obtain stay orders from
the Supreme Court which was then in vacation.
Any way, the appellant moved the learned Vacation Judge of this Court (Mathew, J.) on
June 30, 1972, and obtained e.ic-parte stay of eviction and later obtained
special leave to appeal after notice of motion.
That is how the matter
has come before us.
The lin1itation of the High Court while exercising power under Article
227 of the Constitution is well-settled.
Power under Article 227 is one
of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset conclusions
of facts however erroneous those may be.
Jt is well-settled and per)laps
too late in the day to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Waryam Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Another(1)
where the principles have been clearly laid down as follows :-
"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227
is, as pointed out by Harries C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd.
A
c
v. Sukumar Mukherjee( 2) to be exercised most sparingly and
D
only in appropriate cases in order to keep the
Subordinate
Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".
The same view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench of this
Court in Nagendra Nath Bora & Another v. The Commissioner of Hills
Division and Appeals, Assam and Others.( 3 )
Even recently in Bathut
E
mal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Another,(4 ) dealing with
a litigation between a landlord and tenant under Bombay Rents, Hotel
and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 194 7, this Court relying on its
earlier decisions observed as follows :-
"If an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of the
record, cannot be corrected by means of a writ of certiorari it
should follow a fortiori that it is not subject to correction by
the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
227. The power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be iT.voked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court
of appeal. The High Court cannot in gu;se of exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of
appeal wnen the Legislature has not conferred a right of
appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts".
F
G
Whether the landlord's requirement is bona fide and reasonable has been
concurrenily found by the two courts below against the landlord by appreciating the entire evidence.
After examining the reasons given by
H
(I) [19541 S.C.R. 565.
(2) A.I.R. 1951 Cal 193.
(3) [1958] S.C.R. 1240.
(4) [1975] I S.C.C. 858.
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 S.C.R.
A
both the courts it is not possible to hold that the conclusions are "perverse" or even that these are against the weight of evidence on record. It
is a case of reasonably possible factual appreciation of the entire evidence
and circumstances brought ori the record.
c
D
E
It is possible that another court may be able to take a different view
of the matter by appreefating the evidence in a different manner, if it
determinedly chooses to do so. However, with respect to the learned
Judge (Vaidya, J.) that will not be justice administered according to
law to which courts are committed notwithstanding dissertation, in season
and out of season, about philosophies.
We are clearly of opinion that there was no justification for interference in this case with the conclusions of facts by the High Court under
Axticle 227 of the Constitution.
We are also unable to agree with the
High Court that there was anything so grossly wrong and unjust or shock·
ing the court's "conscience" that it was absolutely necessary in the
interest of justice for the High Court to step in under Article 227 of the
Constitution. Counsel for both sides took us through the reasonings
given by the High Court as well as by the courts below and we are unable
to hold that the High Court was at all correct in exercising its powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the decisions of
the courts below.
In our opinion the High Court arrogated to itself the
powers of a court of appeal, which it did not possess under the law,, and
has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In the result the appeal is allowed.
The judgment and order of the
High Court are set aside and those of the trial court and the appellate
Bench are restored.
Since there was an order at the time of granting
the special leave that costs would be borne by the appellant in any event,
the first respondent will be entitled to his costs in this appeal.
S.R.
Appeal al/awed.
-
-
I