Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anurag Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This is a tenant's petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, who has lost in both the Courts below. J.S.C.C. Suit No. 36 of 1997 filed by respondents -landlords has been decreed vide order dated 21.7.2009 on the ground that there is default in payment of rent on the part of tenant and, therefore, he is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute and this has been confirmed by Revisional Court by dismissing petitioner's Revision No. 16 of 2009 vide order dated 18.4.2013.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and Counsel for petitioner has completely failed to point out any manifest error therein warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 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.
(3.) IN D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee : AIR 1953 SC 58 the Court said: Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere.;