M. Sarkaria Vs. Vithaldas Shyamlal Jhaveri  INSC 205 (8 April 1993)
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Bharucha S.P. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 614
hearing learned counsel, we allow application Nos. IA 1 and 2 for substitution,
condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement. Let the legal
representatives be served notice of the appeal. Mr Dogra on behalf of Parekh
& Co. accepts notice on their behalf and has filed a Vakalatnama which is
taken on record.
3 2. Application for amendment is dismissed as not pressed.
have gone through the lengthy and well-reasoned order of the High Court passed
under Article 227 of the Constitution. The only point urged against it is that
the High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts so as to disturb
the orders of the appellate court, which had denied eviction of the appellant.
The appellant's claim was that he was a sub-tenant inducted into the premises
in dispute in the year 1958 and had become entitled to the protection 615 of a
notification of the year 1959 in his favour. The appellate court reversing the
order of the trial court had held that the appellant was in possession of the
premises in dispute in the year 1958 and his possession was that of a
sub-tenant of that year entitling him to claim the benefit of the notification
of 1959. The High Court went inter alia into the jurisdictional facts as to
whether any rent was paid by the appellant in the year 1959 and also into other
ancillary and attendant factors. Its finding was that even though the appellant
was in possession in 1958, it was permissive in nature and not as a sub-tenant.
As a statement of law it cannot be stated that the order of the High Court
under Article 227 tends to be wrong as it is based on reappreciation of
evidence. It is no doubt true that the High Court normally does not enter the
arena of facts but when it finds the judgment impugned perverse, it cannot be
stated that the High Court commits a legal error in upsetting it. In the
instant case, we have carefully examined the judgment under appeal. We find
that the view taken by the High Court was right in the facts and circumstances.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. No costs.