Power Of Superintendence U/Art. 227 Limited, Can't Interfere Merely To Substitute View: Gujarat HC Refuses To Direct Repairs On Suit Property

The petitioner had approached the High Court against the order passed by a City Civil Court, rejecting such prayer.

Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed,

"High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised."

The Petitioner (Original Plaintiff) filed a suit for repairs for suit property which was owned by the Respondents (Original Defendants). The suit property was rented out to the Petitioners in 2003 wherein the Petitioners were selling readymade garments. The Petitioners contested that a certain portion of the property was broken and likely to cause injuries. Consequently, as regular payers of rent to the Respondents, the Petitioner requested for conducting repairs on the property. However, the same was denied by the Respondents. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a civil suit which was rejected by the trial court.

Contesting that the trial court failed to take into account the factual aspects of the case, the Petitioner submitted that the order was against the principles of equity as enshrined in the Transfer of Property Act. The repairs ought to have been permitted for the making the premises habitable for labour since the property consisted of a go-down. It was further stated that the Petitioner was in great financial distress due to the pandemic and yet the Respondent did not permit repairs.

Per contra, the Respondent supported the order of the court and urged that the High Court could not interfere with the order due to limited powers under Art 227.

Taking note of the contentions, the relied on Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, where the Apex Court had stated:

"The Apex Court has considered in detail the scope of interference by this Court to hold and observe that, Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court Suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power would be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."

The power of superintendence under Article 227 is neither original nor appellate and is extended to both administrative and judicial superintendence. Per contra, Article 226 is normally exercised where a party is affected but Art 227 is exercised by the High Court as the suo motu custodian of justice. The Bench enumerated the following differences between Art 226 and 227:

1. A petition under Art 227 is not a writ petition since the power of superintendence under Art 227 is vastly different from power under Art 226.
2. The High Court cannot exercise power under Art 226 at the drop of a hot. In cases where alternative statutory remedy is available, the High Court should exercise restraint.

After noting these differences, reference was made to Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co. and Ors. - MANU/SC0290/2022 to opine that where there is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal or gross and manifest failure of justice on the basic principles of natural justice, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because the other court has taken a different view.

Consequently, Justice Joshi dismissed the petition as being devoid of merits.

Case Title: SHIV GARMENT THROUGH SOLE PROP. RAMESHCHANDRA GIGAJI MAURYA Versus SURYABEN KANTILAL MEHTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 149

Case No.: C/SCA/19421/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment