Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 530 (UTT)

SURAJ SINGH MEHRA v. MAHMOOD AHMAD

2013-08-16

B.S.VERMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2010, passed by the Prescribed Authority, in P.A. case No. 7 of 2007, Mahmood Ahmad Vs. Smt. Chandra Kala Mehra and others, and judgment and order dated 03.08.2013, passed by Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, in Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 2010, Harish Mehra and others Vs. Mahmood Ahmad. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ are that landlord/respondent no. 1, purchased the premises in question in the year 2001 and later in the year 2007, respondent preferred an application under Section 21(1) (A) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, which was moved before the Prescribed Authority by the respondent, for release of property in question in his favour showing his bonafide need. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. Late Sri Dhan Singh Mehra (father of the petitioner), was tenant in the premises in question and after the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner and the present petitioner along with proforma respondents No. 2 and 3, became the tenant. 3. It is further stated in the writ petition that presently only the petitioner along with his family i.e. his wife and three minor children is residing in the said tenanted residential accommodation. Respondent no. 1-Mahmood Ahmad is living in a house no. 199/79, Vakeel Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Lansedowne, on rent. Therefore, application was moved for release of the ground floor of the premises in question, which is in possession of the tenant. Said application was contested by filing written statement, before the Prescribed Authority, wherein it was alleged that his family is residing at Nagina at his parental house. It is alleged in the written statement that the landlord/respondent no. 1 is not in the need of the accommodation and has moved the application only to enhance the rent and evict the petitioner. It is further alleged that comparative hardship and bonafide need is in favour of the petitioner. 4. Both the parties have led their evidence by filing their affidavits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is further alleged that comparative hardship and bonafide need is in favour of the petitioner. 4. Both the parties have led their evidence by filing their affidavits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Learned Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the premises in question is bonafidely required by the landlord and comparative hardship is also in his favour. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, Rent Control Appeal was preferred before the District Judge. Learned District Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, led before the Prescribed Authority and considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship of both the landlord and tenant, affirmed the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. Hence this writ petition. 5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate court has also observed in para-22 of the judgment, that the name of respondent no. 1/landlord has been shown in the voter list and ration card of Nagina, District Bijnore. 7. The said facts that respondent no. 1, is a permanent resident of Nagina, District Bijnore and is doing carpentry business in Lansdowne town, are not disputed. It is quite possible that he had not applied for Ration Card in Lansdowne since two ration cards are not issued in the name of one person. It is also admitted that Nagina is his parental house where his mother and brothers are living. 8. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court considered this fact that the premises in question was purchased in the year 2001 and respondent no. 1 is doing carpentry business in one room of the premises in question and is living in a different house as a tenant. No effort was made by the tenant to search the accommodation. 9. In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as a court to appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence or reevaluate the evidence, so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. 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 “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.” 10. In the case of 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.” 11. The Apex Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through L.RS. and others [(2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 1] while dealing with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has observed as under:- “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court of tribunal. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court of tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” 12. I have perused the judgment and orders, passed by the two courts below. In the case at hand, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below that the landlord has bonafide requirement for the disputed property. It has also been held by the two courts below that the tenant/petitioner has not made any effort to search for alternative shop hence the balance of comparative hardship is also titled in favour of the landlord. The findings have been recorded by the courts below on appraisal of evidence led by the parties. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no error in the impugned orders, passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted one year’s time to vacate the premises from today, provided they furnish an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 8 weeks to the effect that they will vacate the premises in question before the expiry of said period of one year and shall deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent/landlord and shall also continue to pay the rent to the landlord/respondent month to month till the expiry of the aforesaid period of one year.