AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ram Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Arora, Advocate for respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 18.09.2009 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad decreeing SCC Suit No. 72 of 2003 evicting him from the premises in dispute, i.e., a shop, on the ground of subletting and revisional order dated 16.12.2010 whereby the revision has been dismissed.
It is contended that there was a small kiosk (Khoka) outside the shop of petitioner on a Chabutara and petitioner has throughout contended that the said Chabutara was not a part of tenancy hence question of subletting the premises in question to respondent no. 3 could not have arisen and both the courts below have recorded a finding otherwise, which is wholly illegal.
However, from the record it is evident that both the courts below have recorded findings of facts that Chabutara outside the shop was not a public property as initially contended by petitioner before courts below but was a private party owned by respondent no. 2 having been purchased vide sale deed being paper No. 212C and it was a part and parcel of shop which was in the tenancy of petitioner. Petitioner''s contention that Chabutara was not part of shop but part of public road, was found factually incorrect.
Since the findings of facts recorded by courts below have not been show ex facie erroneous or perverse, in the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court find no reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review in these matters under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others), decided on 30.07.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.
No other argument has been advanced.
I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.