JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7th March, 2000, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court in suit No. 56 of 1996, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'9' to the writ petition, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the defendant-tenant, petitioner in the present writ petition, was directed to vacate the accommodation in question, which is a shop, within one month and also to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court filed a revision before the revisional Court. The revisional Court maintained the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant vide its order dated 10th September, 2004, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'10' to the writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Manoj Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
3. The facts of the filing of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit being suit No. 56 of 1996 for ejectment and the arrears of rent against the petitioner-tenant from the accommodation in question i.e. 4/316-B situated at Mohalla Jogian, Saharanpur on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the shop in question and he had let out the shop in question to the tenant-petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. It is further alleged by the landlord that the accommodation in question was a new construction and was assessed for the first time by the Municipal Board concern in the year 1986, as such the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act') are not applicable. The present suit has been filed by the respondent-landlord after serving notice dated 19th March, 1996, through his Advocate. The petitioner-tenant filed a written statement denying all the allegations, made in the plaint with the submission that the plaintiff-respondent has incorrectly stated that the petitioner is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, but in fact the petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month and that since the building in which the shop in question is situated is old building therefore, the same is covered by the provisions of the Act. The respondent-landlord never issued the receipts for rent paid, it is incorrect to say that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent.
4. The trial Court after exchange of the pleadings have permitted the parties to adduce their oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court for the purposes to decide the controversy have framed following points:-
"1. Whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable to the building in question, if so, its effect?
2. Whether the defendant-tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972?
3. Whether the notice dated 19th March, 1996 by which the tenancy has been terminated, is a valid notice, if so what is its effect?
4. What is the relief?"
5. On the point No. 1, the trial Court recorded finding that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question. This finding has been arrived at by the trial Court after considering the respective case and evidence on record by the parties. Since the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable, the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2 as to whether the tenant-defendant is entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act is decided against the petitioner. On issue No. 3, the trial Court found that the notice was duly served and therefore, with the service, of the notice the tenancy of the tenant-defendant stand terminated. Thus, this issue is also decided against the petitioner-tenant, On the quantum of the rent, the trial Court has arrived at the finding that the rent was in fact Rs. 200/ - per month and the stand taken by the petitioner-tenant that the rent is Rs. 180/- per month has not proved. Thus, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-landlord.
6. Aggrieved thereby, as stated above, the tenant-petitioner preferred a revision before the Revisional Court. The revisional Court decided on the four points framed by the trial Court and after discussing the relevant point raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant have affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court on all the points and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant. Thus, thus writ petition.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant tries to demonstrate by citing statement from here and there that the findings of the trial Court regarding issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 suffer from the manifest error of law without demonstrating that these findings are either perverse, or based on mis-reading of any evidence or not considering of any material evidence.
8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent-landlord submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) : 2004 (1) ARC 613 (SC), Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash; wherein Apex Court has held that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the authority and re-appraise the evidence on record. I am in full agreement with the learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel then relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in, (2003) 6 SCC, 675 : 2003 (2) ARC 385, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court are either perverse, or suffer from the manifest error of law, therefore, this Court in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above, will not act as appellate Court by sitting in appeal and re-appraise the evidence over the findings arrived at by the Courts below in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord relying upon Paragraph 38, sub-paras 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which is reproduced below, submitted that the so called error pointed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is not an error, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
"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 as hereunder:
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by over stepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(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 or 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 take 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 appeal or revision preferred thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court 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 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 re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character."
10. I am in full agreement with the argument advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord. Thus, in my opinion, this writ petition do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall, bear their own costs.