JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2/2.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 09.09.1999 and 16.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Haridwar and the Appellate Authority.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a tenant in property in dispute at the rate of Rs. 5.75 per month. The respondents have filed the suit under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 praying for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is in arrears of rent from 01.01.1987 to 03.04.1988 and damages from 04.04.1988 to 03.07.1988. Respondents have also stated that the premises has been sublet by the petitioner.
4. Petitioner has filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that he has deposited the amount in proceedings under Section 20(4) of the Act and further he has not sublet the premises.
5. Documentary evidence was also filed by the parties, which is quoted below:
^^oknhx.k us jftLVjh jlhn 11 x o 11x@2 dze’k% izn’kZ 1 izn’kZ 2 izkfIr Lohd`r jlhn 12 izn’kZ 3] uxj ikfydk ds Hkouksa ds okf”kZd ewY; ij dj fu/kkZj.k dh lwph 95 x izn’kZ 4 o 95x&1 izn’kZ 5 jftLV~zh fyQkQk e; ,0Mh0 fn0 1-3-88 14x ewyokn la0 33 lu 94 Jh eku flfoy tt gfj}kj }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fn0 6-9-94 dh lR; izfrfyfi 91x&2 mDr okn esa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr jkthukek rFkk ikfjr fMxzh dh lR; izfrfyfi dze’k% 96x&2 rFkk 97×2 gfj}kj ;wfu;u uxj ikfydk dh jlhn 92x&1 egUrk;h ds izLrko dh udy 93×2 ,oa 94×2 egar fu;qDr djus ds lEcU/k esa izLrko dh udy 23x dks is’k fd;k tcfd izfroknh la0 1 us nLrkosth lcwr esa egar js’ke flag dh vksj ls Hksts x;s dfFkr uksfVl dh QksVks LVsV izfr] m- iz- jkT; fo|qr ifj”kn ds fcy o uksfVl o jk’kudkMZ dh QksVks] LVsV izfr dze’k% 11 9x&2 o 121 x&2 dks is’k fd;kA**
6. The Judge, Small Cause Court, vide order dated 09.09.1999, has decreed the suit holding that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 01.01.1987 to 03.04.1988 and has sublet to the defendant No. 2 without the consent of the landlord.
7. So far as deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act is concerned, it has come in evidence that the amount having not been deposited, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
8. According to the findings, the petitioner has deposited the amount by way of tender from 31.07.1999 to 31.12.1999 and no amount prior to this date has been deposited therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
9. Petitioner went in revision before the District Judge by filing the revision. The Revisional Court has also recorded the finding that no amount has been deposited so as to get the benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that the tenant has not deposited the amount under Section 20(4) of the Act and his application having been rejected, he is not entitled for any benefit. Relevant paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit is quoted below:
8. That the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition as stated are totally wrong, misconceived and misleading thus emphatically denied. It is pertinent to mention here that the notices were issued to the petitioner on 4.7.88 for 16.9.88 requiring the petitioner’s presence and on 16.9.88 the petitioner appeared in the case and submitted an application under Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. There after despite of passing of many dates the petitioner never cared to press the aforesaid application and as such on 20.7.90 the case preceded Ex-party. Thereafter on 11.9.91 the application of the petitioner under order 9 rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure came up before the learned Trial Court and on 1.1.93 the ex-party order was recalled. Neither the petitioner tendered the arrears of rent on the very first date nor the landlord refused it. It is further worth mentioning here that there is clear finding of the trial court that till 20.5.93 the petitioner has never cared to deposit the arrears of rent. 20.5.93 was the date fixed for ‘ the evidence and on the same date the petitioner had filed another application praying to deposit the rent after hearing upon the earlier application under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thereafter on 19.12.1993 the counsel of the petitioner appeared before the trial court and stated that in the light of application under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 the petitioner / tenant has no money to deposit. He had also consented for the rejection of the aforesaid application and as such on 19.12.93 the application under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner had sought many adjournments but again ultimately failed to appear in the case and the learned trial court was left with no other alternative but to proceed ex-party again on 9.5.95 and on 14.12.96 it was again recalled upon the application of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner never cared to deposit the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing rather tried to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and such it is submitted that the petitioner had never approached the courts of law with clean hands.
11. The Judge, Small Cause Court has recorded the finding to the following effect:
^^izfroknh us ,d Vs.Mj fdjk;k tek djus dh ckcr tek fd;k gS tks fd 31-7-99 ds fdjk;s ds lEcU/k esa gS ijUrq iwoZ ds fdjk;s ds lEcU/k esa gS ijUrq iwoZ ds fdjk;s ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh Vs.Mj U;k;ky; esa is’k ugha gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfroknh la0 1 }kjk eqdnes esa izFke lquokbZ ij lEiw.kZ fdjk;k oxsjgk tek djuk ugh ik;k tkrk gSA vr% izfroknh ;w0ih0 ,DV uEcj 13 lu~ 72 dh /kkjk 20¼4½ dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% fcUnq la0 lkfcr ugh gSA fcUnq la0 4 dk fuLrkj.k rn~uqlkj izfroknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA**
12. Further, the relevant finding recorded by the revisional court is also quoted below:
^^izfroknh ua0 1 us oknh dh jtkeanh ds fcuk dkuwu ds foijhr izfroknh la0 2 dks f’kdeh fdjk;snkj vkckn dj j[kk gSaA izfroknh la0 1 ij oknh dk fdjk;k Hkh cdk;k gSaA vr% oknh us izfroknh la0 1 dks fdjk;k olwyh ,oa csn[kyh ds fy, ,d uksfVl fnukad 01-03-88 jftLVMZ Mkd ls Hkstk tks izfroknh la0 1 dks fnukad 03-03-88 dks rkehy gqvk tcfd izfroknh la0 2 us jftLVMZ uksfVl ysus ls budkj dj fn;kA oknh us izfroknh la0 1 dh fdjk;snkjh uksfVl vof/k lekIr gksus ds i’pkr ls lekIr dj nhA izfroknh ua0 1 us uksfVl ds rkehyk ds ckotwn ryc fd;k x;k fdjk;k oknh dks ugha Hkstk vkSj u gh fookfnr lEifÙk ij viuk dCtk [kkyh djds ,oa f’kdeh ds dCts ls fookfnr lEifÙk dks [kkyh djk oknh dks dCtk gh fn;kA izfroknh la0 1 ij fnukad 01-01-77 ls 03-04-88 rd eqc0 86-25 iSls rFkk eqvkotk bLrseky fnukad 15-11-91 dks egkUr ljeq[k flag dk LoxZokl gks x;k ftlds i’pkr oknhx.k tks muds f’k”;x.k vkSj mÙkjkf/kdkjh gS izfroknh ds fo:) okn pyokus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA okn dk dkj.k U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls mRiUu gqvk D;ksafd fookfnr lEifÙk 6-00 :i;s izfrfnu ij nh tk ldrh gSa bl dkj.k oknh izfroknh la0 1 ls 5-00 :i;s izfrfnu eqvkotk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA okn dk ewY;kadu dj ,oa U;kf;d ‘kqYd vnk dj oknh us orZeku okn fnukad 04-07-88 dks is’k fd;k vkSj U;k;ky; ls vuqrks”k pkgk fd fookfnr lEifÙk ls oknh dks 103-50 :i;s fdjk;k rFkk 5-00 :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls dCtk izkIr djus rd eqvkotk fnyk;k tk;sA**
13. From the aforesaid findings, it is evident that both the courts below have recorded the findings about the arrears of rent and subletting of the defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the landlord. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Relying upon the judgment of Madan Mohan and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Sood , it has been observed in Sukhanand v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Bulandhshahr reported in 1993(2) ARC 39 as under:
7. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Madan Mohan and Anr. v. Krishan Kumar Sood, , what ever protection the Rent Acts give, they do not give blanket protection for non-payment of rent’. This basic minimum requirement has to be complied with by the tenants. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he could continue to enjoy the same without payment of the rent. The onus to show payment of rent lies on a tenant. I respectfully fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Smt. Angoori Devi reported in 1989 (1) ARC 540. Further mere oral testimony is not sufficient in this connection, In a case where the tenant comes forward with the allegations that the rent was paid but no receipt was issued with no explanation whatsoever, for not sending the rent by money order, then, in such a situation, the oral testimony of the tenant is regard to the payment of rent claiming discharge of the liability in this regard cannot be deemed to be worth reliance at all.
15. Further relying upon the judgment of Madan Mohan and Anr. v. Mohan Kumar Sood 1993 (1) JT 162 in Mohd. Siddiqui v. Iind Additional District Judge, Unnao 1997 (2) ARC 400, it has been observed as under:
21. As pointed out by the Apex Court in its decision in this case of Madan Mohan and Anr. v. Mohan Kumar Sood, reported in 1993 (1) JT 162 : 1993 SCFBRC 133 (SC), whatever protection the Rent Acts give they do not give blanket protection for non-payment of rent. This basic minimum has to be complied with by the tenants. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he can continue to enjoy the same without payment of rent.
16. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander SCC 2003 Vol-6 675, the Apex Court has held as under:
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirement are satisfied: (i) The error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings is an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and or early disposal of the suit of proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that every moment, may become incapable of correction at a letter stage and refused to intervene would result in stravesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.”
The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
17. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interfering with the findings recorded by the courts below. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.
18. However, the petitioner has prayed for some time to vacate the premises. Considering the request, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted for a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.