BHAGWATI, J. - (1.)BY way of this intra-court appeal, the appellants - petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 14.2.2012, whereby the learned Single Judge granted time upto 31st December, 2013 to the defendants-petitioners/appellants to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question.
(2.)HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for eviction against the petitioners-defendants (appellants) on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity and change of user and material alteration of the suit premises. The learned Rent Tribunal decreed the suit for eviction vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2004. Thereafter, the petitioners-appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.9.2005. Being dissatisfied with the orders of the two courts below, the petitioners-appellants preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9355/2006 which also stood dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2006. The petitioners-appellants then preferred a D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 72/2007, which was decided on 8.8.2007 and the matter was remanded to the learned Rent Tribunal.
This is second round of litigation. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and decree dated 22.12.2007 allowed the eviction petition of the defendants-respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2007, the petitioners-appellants preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, which stood dismissed vide judgment dated 13.10.2010 and the order of the learned Tribunal was affirmed. Thereafter the petitioners-appellants preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1877/2011. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 14.2.2012 observing that both the Tribunals recorded a concurrent finding of fact and this Court did not find any manifest error which could require interference under its limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose Versus Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 (1) categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure concurrent findings of fact given by the trial court and the then appellate court.

In the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Versus Jangbahadur Rai, (1963) 1 SCR 456, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. In this connection, the Apex court observed as follows:

"It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. As the two Courts, approached the evidence from a correct perspective and gave a concurrent finding of fact, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding."

To the same effect is another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Ramachandra Ayyar V. Ramalingam, Chettiar reported in (1963) 3 SCR 604, where the Court observed as follows: "But the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court, because as the Privy Council observed, however, gross or inexcusably the error may seem to be there is no jurisdiction under Section 100 to correct that error."

(3.)THE same view was taken in two earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D. Pattabhiramaswamy V. Hanymayya reported in AIR 1959 SC 57 and Raruha Singh Versus Achal Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 1097.
In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner.

The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that High Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to upset the pure findings of fact of two courts below. The scope of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. This extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked only when the judgment of the court below is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice.