Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Om Prakash, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.C. Mandhyan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Lalit Kumar, Advocate for respondents.
(2.) Petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") for eviction of respondent-tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground that he intends to commence independent business since he is totally unemployed. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that neither petitioner could show that he is unemployed nor the comparative hardship lies in his favour. The Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that petitioner is engaged in the business of "Bansal Poultry" and in the entire writ petition, there is nothing to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding is perverse or contrary to record. Unless the concurrent findings recorded by Courts below are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
(3.) This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.;