INDIRA DEBI Vs. GANGA RAM MUNSHI RAM
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Ganga Ram Munshi Ram
Click here to view full judgement.
CHOWDHRY, J. -
(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Indira Debi under Article 227 of the Constitution against the decision of the District Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur dated 17 4 1952 as an appellate authority under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(2.) THE landlords Ganga Ram Munshi Ram filed an application under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner & one other named Mai Rewati. The residential house in question was let out by the landlords to Mai Rewati. The appellate authority has found that Mai Rewati left the house a considerable time ago and put the petitioner into the house without landlords' consent. A decree for eviction of the petitioner has therefore been passed by him.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is not denied that the house was let out to Mai Rewati, nor is it pleaded that there is any privity of contract between the petitioner and the landlord. What was argued before me was that under the said Act the landlord could be granted a decree of eviction against the tenant but not against a subtenant.
(3.) EVEN if it be supposed that the proposition of law propounded on behalf of the petitioner be correct, the mere fact that the lower appellate Court committed an error in deciding that point of law would not be a good ground for this Court to interfere with its decision in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. That Article, it is well established, is meant to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction & not to correct errors of decision on questions of law or questions of fact. The lower appellate Court had the jurisdiction to record a finding on the said question of law, and the mere fact that it may have committed an error in recording that finding does not mean that it had no jurisdiction to do so.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.