SUPREME COURT STATES HIGH COURT CANNOT CONVERT ITSELF INTO COURT OF APPEAL
– Aakanksha Bhatia
The Apex court restated that while hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal.
In this particular case, the rent controller as well as the 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 the premises “vacant”. The District Judge allowed the revision petition filed by the tenant, set aside these orders. The High Court, allowing a petition under Article 277 of the Constitution filed by the landlord, set aside the orders of District Judge on the ground that the judge has committed illegality in entertaining the joint revision filed against the vacancy order and the final order.
The Bench consisting Justices Navin Sinha and BR Gavai observed that the High Court ignored the legal position expounded in a three-judge bench judgment in the case of Achal Mishra v. Rama Shanker Singh, wherein it was held, that even if a party does not challenge the vacancy order by way of a writ petition, it is still open to it to challenge the same order with the final order passed under the section 16 in revision under section 18. The Bench then observed that, in view of that matter, the District Judge was fully justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction office.
While setting aside the High Court order, the bench also observed that it misjudged in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Judge while exercising its jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.