Summary
A vacancy declaration could be challenged in revision together with the final release order under the U.P. rent-control legislation. The earlier writ dismissal expressly preserved that remedy. The District Judge properly corrected a vacancy finding that misread the inspection report and the governing law: relatives residing with the original tenant had not been given occupation in their own right. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was unjustified, and its order was set aside.
Issues
- Whether the vacancy declaration remained challengeable with the final release order.
- Whether the District Judge exceeded revisional jurisdiction in correcting the vacancy finding.
- Whether interference under Article 227 was warranted.
Provisions considered
- Section 18, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Revision against the final order permitted challenge to the preliminary vacancy declaration and correction of jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity. (¶¶ 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 26, 29)
Held
- Following Achal Misra, an aggrieved person could challenge a vacancy notification immediately by writ petition or challenge it in statutory revision against the final order. Here the earlier writ order expressly preserved the latter remedy. Treating that dismissal as foreclosing revision misread both the order and binding three-Judge precedent. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Revisional jurisdiction does not permit a fresh appellate assessment merely because another factual view is possible. It does permit correction of perversity, material evidentiary misreading and findings contrary to law. These principles applied to the District Judge’s section 18 powers. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Deemed vacancy under section 12(1)(b) required allowing a person outside the statutory family to occupy in that person’s own right. The inspection report showed residence with the tenant and his family, without such independent occupation. The contrary vacancy finding misread the evidence and governing precedent, justifying revisional interference. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
- The question under section 14 need not be examined. Article 227 supervision must be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their authority, and cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction. The High Court’s interference with the District Judge’s lawful correction was unwarranted. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 26 October 2017 quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.