JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri exercising the power under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and remanding the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for reconsideration in accordance with law.
2. Heard Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner None is present on behalf of the contesting respondents.
3. Sri Bhalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the application filed by the petitioner the proceedings were initiated before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the accommodation which is under the tenancy of the respondent No. 3, Mithlesh Kumar Bhansali, was declared vacant and the same was allotted in favour of the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and when petitioner applied for execution of the order of allotment by filling up the Form 16-D, an application for review was filed by the respondent No. 3, Mithlesh Kumar Bhansali to the effect that he is the tenant and he has never been informed of any such proceeding pursuant whereof the vacancy was declared vacant nor was informed of allotment made in favour of the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain. He is in possession of the accommodation and in fact, petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain played a fraud and obtained an order declaring vacancy and consequent thereof got allotted the accommodation in his favour by concealing facts. He therefore, filed an application for review of the allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the material on record arrived at the conclusion that no ground for review is made out, he therefore, rejected the application for review of the allotment order passed by him in favour of Ashok Kumar Jain. Aggrieved thereby respondent No. 3, Mithlesh Kumar Bhansali preferred a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. The District Judge by the impugned order has directed that the respondent No. 3 is living in the aforesaid accommodation by virtue of allotment order issued in his favour and allotment order has never been cancelled therefore, the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in declaring vacancy and consequently allotting the accommodation in favour of the petitioner, was not in consonance with the principle of natural justice. The revisional Court further held that there is no evidence to show that the inspector concerned had given notice to the sitting tenant and the landlord concerned before making inspection and submitting inspection report on the basis whereof the accommodation was declared vacant. It further held that there is no mention in his report that the accommodation was actually vacant and yet strangely enough the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had relied such facts in his order dated 1.1.1986 and also placed reliance on the fact mentioned in the inspection report of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thus, on the principle that even the landlord has not been given notice, the revisional Court set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and directed the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is this order, which is under challenge here.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned in the present writ petition namely, the revisional order, does not contain any reason. In view of what has been stated above and from the perusal of the record, this argument cannot be sustained. The revisional Court has given its reason for its conclusion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order clearly demonstrates that it has been passed without application of mind. This argument is also not substantiated and deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even on merits in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in, AIR 1976 Alld. 91; Nanha and Anr. v. Dy. Director, Consolidation, Kanpur and Ors. wherein the Full Bench of this Court has observed:
"17. Our answer to the question referred to us is--
If it appears that a Court of fact has in substance based its findings on no evidence or that its finding is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could possibly come to that conclusion or that it erroneously ignores a vital plea or material evidence which affects the result, a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record leading to failure of justice can be said to be established. But if a Court or a Tribunal bases its findings on a consideration of all relevant evidence, but an appellate or a revisional Court or Tribunal while affirming the finding does not refer to some material or contrary evidence in its order it cannot be said that it has been ignored from consideration so as to entitle the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution."
5. In view of the recent pronouncement by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in, 2003 SCFBRC 512: 2003 (6) 675, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., wherein the Apex Court has ruled as under:
"38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusion in a nut shell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same the same as hereunder:
(5) 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 requirements 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.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or completed argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to taken one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and 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 occasioned. 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 proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred thereagainst 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 or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to Intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) 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.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdiction. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate case itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case."
6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai (supra) I do not find it to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of the fact that the matter is remanded back for decision afresh in accordance with law.
7. This writ petition has no force and is dismissed.