- (1.) The tenant is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court directing eviction. The High Court granted time till 31st March, 1999 and an undertaking to that effect however, was filed. After filing the undertaking however the appellant herein moved this Court by the grant of Special Leave.
(2.) The suit was instituted for bonafide need and all the three courts have come to a concurrent finding that the landlord's, need is genuine and bonafide. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while dealing with the Writ Petition has been pleased to observe that the writ court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in rent control matters is supervisory in nature and the court is not expected to embark upon reappraisal of evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the findings of appellate authority. The learned Single Judge however recorded in file that the question of interference in the matter would not arise and as such dismissed the Writ Petition.
(3.) During the course of hearing, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Variety Emporium v. R. M. Mohammad Ibrahim Naina [1985 (1) SCC 251] wherein this Court in paragraph 6 observed as below : "6.It cannot be overlooked that three courts have held concurrently in this case that the respondent has proved that he requires the suit premises bona fide for his personal need. Such concurrence, undoubtedly has relevance on the question whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to review a particular decision. That jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly. But that cannot possibly mean that injustice must be perpetuated because it has been done three times in a case. The burden of showing that a concurrent decision of two or more courts or Tribunals is manifestly unjust lies on the appellant. But once that burden is discharged, it is not only the right but the duty of this Court to remedy the injustice. ";