Certiorari limits under Article 227 prevent interference unless an error is apparent on the face of the record.

Certiorari under Article 227 is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors, breaches of natural justice, and errors of law apparent on the face of the record; it does not permit appellate reappreciation or detailed reasoning review. On that standard, the High Court could not interfere with the Tribunal's view on whether a landlord had to give prior notice terminating tenancy before seeking possession under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The issue required examination of Sections 14, 24 and 25, together with Section 3 of that Act and Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As the alleged error was not self-evident without extended argument, no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in certiorari under Article 227 on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that a landlord must give prior notice terminating tenancy before seeking possession under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: Certiorari lies to correct jurisdictional errors, breaches of natural justice, and errors of law that are apparent on the face of the record. It does not permit the superior court to act as an appellate court or to reappreciate findings that depend on a long and elaborate process of reasoning. The question whether the tenancy could be terminated only by prior notice required detailed examination of the terms of Section 14, Section 24, Section 25, and the interaction of Section 3 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 with Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Since the alleged error was neither self-evident nor obvious without extended argument, it could not be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in issuing a writ of certiorari, because the Tribunal's view, even if arguable, did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

---