JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed the present writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 12-12-1983 passed by the District Judge Dehradun and the order dated 18-11-1982 passed by Prescribed Authority Dehradun and the order of allotment dated 25-11-1982. By the order dated 18-11-1982, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun (for short R.C. & E.O.) permitted the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to enter into partnership for the purpose of carrying on business in the disputed accommodation. By the order dated 25-11-1982, the R.C. and E.O. had allotted the disputed shop in favour of the said partnership. By the judgment and order dated 12-12-1983, the District Judge has dismissed the two revisions which were filed by the petitioners against the said orders dated 18-11-1983 and dated 25-11-1982. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that according to the petitioners, they are the landlords of the accommodation in dispute being the successors of the original landlord Suraj Prakash Nagalya. The shop in dispute was originally let out to Tika Ram, who was running the business of selling Gur, etc. on retail and after his death, the tenancy developed on his legal heirs Brij Mohan Gupta, GK Gupta, Vinod Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Madhu Agarwal, Usha, Sabita and Seem a and the business was carried on by them. On 5-7-1982, a Partnership Deed was executed between Pradeep Kumar and one Subhash Chand. By the partnership deed, instead of the business of retail sale of Gur, etc., the manufacturing process of preparation and selling of dairy products was inducted into business. 3. Pradeep Kumar, one of the sitting tenants, moved an application on 5-7-1982 before the Prescribed Authority under Rule 10(6)(a) or the Rules framed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short the Act) for permission to enter into an agreement with Subhash Chandra and he filed his own affidavit as well as that of the other partner along with proposed partnership deed in support of his contention. During the pendency of the application, the legal heirs of the deceased landlord Suraj Prakash Nagalya including the petitioner filed objections to the proposed acceptance of partnership deed and also intimated vacancy of the disputed shop on 23-8-1982 as provided under Section 15 of the Act on the ground that the disputed shop was illegally sublet by Pradeep Kumar to one Subhash Chand under the garb of a fictitious partnership. The Prescribed Authority after considering the rival contentions of the parties found that the shop in question was not sub let and that the proposed partnership was a bona fide transaction and that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 Pradeep Kumar and Subhash Chand were entitled to enter into the proposed agreement of partnership vide his order dated 18-11-1982. Ultimately by his order dated 25-11-1982, the Prescribed Authority allotted the shop in favour of the partnership. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 25-11-1982, the legal heirs of deceased landlord Suraj Prakash Nagalya including the petitioner preferred separate revisions against the order dated 18-11-1982 and 25-11-1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority before the District Judge Dehradun, which were registered as Rent Control Revision Nos. 294 of 1982 and 299 of 1982. The learned revisional court heard both the revisions together and decided them by a common order dated 22-12-1983. 5. Before the revisional court, the revisionists had contended that Sri Tika Ram, the father of the respondent no. 3 Pradeep Kumar was in fact the tenant of the shop. He died leaving behind 8 sons and daughters. It was contended that after the death of original tenant Tika Ram, his heirs became tenants in common and so if seven of them surrendered their tenancy rights in the disputed shop, the same was to be deemed to be vacant with effect from the said surrender. It was argued that the so called partnership at the instance of only one of the heirs of deceased Tika Ram could not be recognized in law. The revisional Court did not find favour with the contention of the revisionists and it observed as under :- “The remaining heirs of Sri Tika Ram have submitted in writing that they have no concern with the tenancy of the disputed shop. They have also permitted respondent no.1 not only to be the exclusive tenant of the shop but also to take another as partner in the new business. They have also permitted respondent no.1 not only to be the exclusive tenant of the shop but also to take another as partner in the new business. I, therefore, fail to understand as to how the claim of respondent no. 1 could be excluded merely because the remaining heirs do not claim tenancy right in the shop. So far as unauthorised sub letting of the shop in favour of respondent no. 2 is concerned there is nothing cogent to substantiate the allegations. As observed by the lower Authority, documents on record relate to some other premises and not to the shop in dispute. 6. The question still remains if the transaction in question is bonafide transaction. The respondents have filed the proposed partnership deed. It unmistakably reveals that both of them are to share the profits and losses in equal proportions. The partnership is to maintain regular accounts. Both the partners are to subscribe the capital equally. Name of the partnership too is to bear the name of both the respondents. Necessity for the new business arose as the previous business to yield dividends in favour of respondent no.1. I, therefore, fail to understand as to how these terms could make out a case of either of malafides or camouflage for illegal sub letting. The proposed partnership being bona fide and genuine it was to be accepted by the lower Authority as done under the impugned order. It, therefore, follows that the allotment too was in accordance with law." 7. The learned revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 12-12-1983 dismissed both the revisions and upheld the orders passed by ~he Prescribed Authority dated 18-11-1982 and 25-11-1982. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned orders, averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 as well as the rejoinder affidavit flied by the petitioner. 9. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. Only the perversity or illegality of the impugned orders can be examined and it can also be seen whether the findings arrived at by the courts below are based on proper appraisal of evidence or not. 10. Only the perversity or illegality of the impugned orders can be examined and it can also be seen whether the findings arrived at by the courts below are based on proper appraisal of evidence or not. 10. Section 12 of the Act deals with the provisions of deemed vacancy of building in certain cases. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 is relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition, which reads as under : "(2) In the case of non-residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as; a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. 11. Relevant extract of Rule 10(6) of the Rules framed under the Act reaps as under:- "(6) A person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b), or who is evicted under Section 21 by virtue of being a tenant referred to in Explanation (1) of Section 21 (1) shall not be allotted that or any other residential building and a person who is deemed to have ceased a occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(2), shall not be allotted that or any other non-residential building for a period of two years from the date of such eviction or deemed cessation, as the case may be : Provided that (a) if the District Magistrate is satisfied in a case referred to in Section 12(2) that the admission of partner or new partner is bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for subletting, he shall, if any application had been made in that behalf before the admission of such partner or new partner, allot the non-residential building in question afresh to the newly constituted or re-constituted firm;" 12. Thus, the provision of Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules provides that a person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b) or if he is evicted under Section 21 of the Act shall not be allotted or any other residential building and also that person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Act shall not be allotted for or any other non-residential building for a period of two years from the date of such vacation or deemed vacancy. Moreover, the proviso (a) appended to this provision referred to above empowers the District Magistrate to allot a non-residential building to a newly constituted or reconstituted firm if in case referred to under Section 12(2) of the Act the admission of a partner is bona fide and an application has been made before the admission of such partner. 13. A conjoin reading of the provision of Section 12(2) of the Act read with Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules framed under the Act makes it clear that to consider an application under Rule 10(6) of the Rules framed under the Act, the Prescribed Authority had to be satisfied firstly that the accommodation was a non-residential accommodation and that the partnership was a bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for sub-letting, and also that the application has been made before admission of such partner. 14. The admitted facts of case are that one Tika Ram was the original tenant of the disputed shop. He left behind him as many as eight persons as his legal heirs including one son Pradeep Kumar. The application under Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules was made by Pradeep Kumar before the Prescribed Authority on 5-7-1982. The application for permission to enter into the transaction of partnership was allowed vide order dated 18-11-1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority. It is also not disputed that the partnership deed was executed between Pradeep Kumar and Subhash Chand only on 19-11-1982. It is an admitted fact that the order of allotment was passed by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the newly constituted Firm on 25-11-1982, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. It is an admitted fact that the order of allotment was passed by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the newly constituted Firm on 25-11-1982, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 Subhash Chand, the averment made in the writ petition that originally the disputed shop was let out to Tika Ram who has been carrying on the business of Gur (Bura)and washing shop etc. on retail basis therein. It was stated that after the death of Tika Ram, all the legal heirs except Pradeep Kumar surrendered the tenancy rights in favour of Pradeep Kumar. It was stated that Pradeep Kumar alone continued to be the joint tenant of the disputed shop. It was denied that the business was carried on by all the heirs of deceased Tika Ram. It was also stated that the proposed partnership between the partners was found to be a bona fide transaction and the application for permission was rightly allowed. It has also been stated that the application under Rule 10(6)(a) was moved by the respondent no. 3 and the averments made therein that the goods as well as the shop were burnt due to fire. It was stated that a bona fide transaction of partnership was entered into between respondent nos. 3 and 4. It was stated that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge on the point of transaction of partnership being bonafide is a finding of fact, which is based on proper appraisal of evidence on record. 16. In paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit, following averments have been made:- "12. That the contents of para 12 of the writ petition are incorrect and denied. The application under rule 10(6) A filed by respondent no. 3 was based on true facts and genuine grounds. During Navratra, fire broke out in the shop and whole goods were burnt. The old business was not yielding any profit and respondent no. 3 suffered huge loss due to fire. His intention to start business of milk and Curd etc was a bonafide one. As he was short of money he sought financial help from the deponent, who proposed to be the partner in the proposed business and thus a bonafide transaction of partnership was entered into between the deponent and the respondent no.3. His intention to start business of milk and Curd etc was a bonafide one. As he was short of money he sought financial help from the deponent, who proposed to be the partner in the proposed business and thus a bonafide transaction of partnership was entered into between the deponent and the respondent no.3. Deponent was also unemployed and he bonafidely entered into the partnership business." 17. On behalf of the petitioners, rejoinder affidavit, which has been sworn in by petitioner no. 4 Anurag Nagalia, has been filed and the deponent has stated that the contents of para 12 are not admitted as stated. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Rule 10(6) and the order of allotment in favour of newly constituted firm consisting of respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 was contrary to the provision of Rule 10(6) and Section 12 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the alleged partnership was not a bona fide transaction, rather the disputed shop had been sublet to one Sub hash Chand. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Dayanand Sharma Vs. VII/ Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others reported in 1992 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases, Page 60 (Lucknow Bench), wherein in paragraph 15, following observations were made by the Allahabad High Court :- "15. To consider an application under Rule 10(6), the learned Additional District Magistrate had to be satisfied firstly that the accommodation was a non-residential accommodation and that the partnership was a bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for sub-letting, and also that the application has been made before admission of such partner." 19. In the reported case, Opposite-party No.3 B.S. Bedi was a tenant in the first floor of 17, B.B. Road, Lal Bagh, Lucknow. He moved an application on 5-3-1986 before the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control) Lucknow seeking permission to admit Rajendra Kumar and Shanker Lal opposite-parties 4 and 5 as partners in the business M/s Shri Rani General Merchant and for allotment of the premises to the said firm. An application was moved by the petitioner on 3-4-86 for allotment of this accommodation for his residence. An application was moved by the petitioner on 3-4-86 for allotment of this accommodation for his residence. The petitioner filed objection on the ground that the accommodation was a residential one and the so called partnership was in fact a transfer of accommodation to the opposite parties 4 and 5. The Additional District Magistrate passed an order permitting Shri B.S. Bedi to have Shanker Lal and Rajendra Kumar as his partner. By a separate order, the application of the petitioner for allotment was rejected. The petitioner went up in revision, which was dismissed on the ground that revision was not maintainable. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders in writ petition on the ground that the partnership could be permitted only in a non-residential accommodation under Rule 10(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. The Additional District Magistrate had not given any finding that the partnership was a bona fide transaction. The High Court while allowing the writ petition observed that the Additional District Magistrate did not consider the objection wherein it was alleged that the accommodation in question is a residential accommodation. The matter was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate concerned. 20. In the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that the premises in question is a nonresidential accommodation. 21. So far as the question whether the partnership was a bona fide transaction is concerned, the respondent no.3 had moved an application under Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules seeking permission of the Prescribed Authority to admit the respondent no.4 as a partner in the business. The respondent no.4 has annexed a copy of the application under Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules as Annexure CA-I to the counter affidavit. From a bare perusal of the application, it is obvious that the name and address of the partner i.e. respondent no. 4 has been fully disclosed in the application. The landlord-petitioner no. 3 filed his objection before the Prescribed Authority. In the impugned order dated 18-11-1982, it has been mentioned by the Prescribed Authority that the objection was filed alleging therein that applicant Pradeep Kumar is not a tenant of the disputed shop and he has no right to move the application. The main objection of the landlord was that the applicant Pradeep Kumar had sublet the disputed shop to Subhash Chand. The main objection of the landlord was that the applicant Pradeep Kumar had sublet the disputed shop to Subhash Chand. The Prescribed Authority while passing the order dated 18-11-1982 has considered the entire evidence led by the parties and has also considered the objection of the landlord. After perusing the evidence led by both the partie5 elaborately, the Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding of fact that the transaction of partnership is a bona fide transaction. Ultimately, the application under Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules was allowed. 22. The revisional court also considered the point whether the transaction of partnership is bona fide transaction or not and after considering the evidence, the revisional court has recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the proposed partnership was a bonafide and genuine transaction and it was not a mere cover for sub-letting. 23. Thus, in the case at hand, it is amply clear that the application for admitting a partner was made by the respondent no. 3 before the Prescribed Authority on 5-7-1982 for permission under Rule 10(6)(a) of the Rules, which was allotted vide order dated 18-11-1982. The Prescribed Authority has recorded its satisfaction that the partnership was a bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for sub-letting. The record shows that the partnership deed was executed on 19-11-1982 between respondent nos. 3 and 4. Thus, I find that the requirement of law, as observed by the Allahabad High Court in paragraph no. 15 of the case of Dayanand Sharma (supra) has been fully satisfied in the case at hand. Hence this case does not help the petitioner in any manner. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioners has lastly contended that the father of the respondent no. 3, namely Tika Ram, was the original tenant of the disputed shop, who left behind him as many as eight legal heirs and after his death seven heirs have surrendered their tenancy rights in the disputed shop, therefore, the disputed shop ought to have been deemed to be vacant and the partnership at the instance of respondent no. 3 could not have been recognized in law. 3 could not have been recognized in law. I do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel on this score also for the simple reason that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the revisional court are the finding of fact thereby holding that the proposed transaction of partnership in a bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for sub-letting, which have been arrived at after appraisal of evidence. The District Judge has observed that "the remaining heirs of Sri Tika Ram have submitted in writing that they have no concern with the tenancy of the disputed shop. They have also permitted respondent no.1 not only to be the exclusive tenant of the shop but also to take another as partner in the new business." In such circumstances the tenancy rights of respondent no.3 in the disputed shop could not come to an end and there appears to be no question of deemed vacancy. The argument of the learned counsel that the induction of respondent no. 4 as a partner by respondent no. 3 is contrary to the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act cannot be accepted particularly in view of the specific permission sought for by the respondent no.3 before execution of partnership deed and granted by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the respondent no. 3 vide h is order dated 18-11-1982. 25. Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, I am of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the two courts below do not suffer from any manifest error of law. The learned District Judge as well as the Prescribed Authority have by their independent findings found that the proposed transaction of partnership has been a bona fide transaction. The main objection of the petitioner-landlords that the disputed shop had already been sub let to the respondent no. 4 Subhash Chandra was found to be untenable. 26. While parting in the matter, it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. 4 Subhash Chandra was found to be untenable. 26. While parting in the matter, it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675] that "On the other hand, 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 not 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." In the case "Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash" [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that "An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal." 27. For the discussion and reasons aforesaid, I find that the findings arrived at by the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge Dehradun are the finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. 28. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 29. All applications stand disposed of.