Justice Navin Sinha and BR Gavai in case of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors in civil appeal no 2697 of 2020, sets aside the high court order by stating that the exercise of jurisdiction by high court under Article 227 in the present case was patently unwarranted and unjustified.
Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, allowing the landlord’s application, passed a final order under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, rent and eviction act 1972, declaring premisis vacant. The present appellant being aggrieved filed writ petition where the High Court referred the case Achal Mishra vs Rama Shanker Singh and others.
The learned Judge said that the High Court has failed to take into consideration that earlier the court referred the case of Achal Mishra where it was held that even if party does not challenge vacancy order by way of writ petition, it is still open to challenge same order with final order under section 16 in the revision under Section 18.
It is a well settled principle of law, that in Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.
It has been held, that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors.” said Supreme Court.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court dated 26.10.2017 is quashed and set aside, and also the court held that there shall be no order as to costs.