- (1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for respondents. The petitioner has disputed title/ownership and status of landlord of respondent No. 1 but both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact holding him landlord in respect to property in dispute and have recorded findings against petitioner-tenant. The respondent No. 1 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") which has been allowed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2004 against petitioner and three others, namely, Vinod Kumar Dixit, Girish Kishore Dixit and Bhavnesh Kishore Dixit. There against two rent appeals were filed, i.e., Rent Appeal No. 06 of 2004 by present petitioner and Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2004 by Vinod Kumar Dixit. Both these appeals were dismissed by Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment dated 31.05.2005 confirming Prescribed Authority's order dated 16.01.2004.
(2.) Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error in the impugned judgments so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution.
(3.) The scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of courts below are assailed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution is very limited. 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.;