- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner.
(2.) The plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar arising out of Civil Suit No. 2705 of 2012, Chunni Lal Gupta Versus Premu Gupta and others as well as order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in Appeal No. 110 of 2012, Chunni Lal Gupta Versus Premu Gupta and others, rejecting the petitioner's temporary injunction application. The courts below have recorded a finding that no, prima facie, case was made out and the petitioner has not pleaded as to whether petitioner is tenant or landlord of the shop in question, whereas, the specific case of the respondent no. 5 is that he is landlord and owner of the suit property and the petitioner is a tenant and under the garb of tenancy petitioner wants to grab the adjacent shop in the tenancy of his brother. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that there is threat of eviction, whereas, the respondent no. 5 has filed a Suit No. 212 of 2012 for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner.
(3.) In M/s Estralla Rubber Versus Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., 2001 AIR(SC) 3295, the Supreme Court has explained the scope and ambit of exercise of power of interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in matters arising out of suit is as follows:- " 6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to. 7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd vs. Ramtahel Ramanand and Ors., 1972 AIR(SC) 1598 in para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh & Anr. Vs. Amarnath & Anr, 1954 SCR 565. This court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Anr, 1975 AIR(SC) 1297 has observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal.";