IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2037 of 2010. Sri Devi Lal Sah (since deceased & substituted by L.Rs.) 1/1 Smt. Uma Sah and others. … Petitioners. Vs. Smt. Uma Nath and three others. …Respondents. . Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. R.C.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date February 21, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No.10084 of 2010) Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally at the admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment/order dated 29-10-2010 passed by the District Judge, Almora in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2010 Devi Lal Sah (since deceased & substituted by L.Rs.) and another Vs. Smt. Uma Nath and others as well as to quash the judgment/order dated 30-3-2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Almora in Rent Case No. 5 of 2007 Smt. Uma Nath and others Vs. Sri Devi Lal Sah and another (contained in Annexure Nos. 11 and 3 respectively to the writ petition). ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) was filed by the applicant-respondents herein against the opposite parties Devi Lal Sah and another for release of a shop numbered as Nagar Palika Building No. 127 situate at Chaughan Pata, Mall Road, Almora on the ground of bona fide need of applicant no.4-Santosh Nath son of late Hira Nath. 5. The release application was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their separate written statement and both the opposite parties have taken similar pleas. It has been asserted that the respondents-opposite parties are not having bona fide need and five other shops have been given on rent by the landlords. In paragraph no. 2 of the written statement filed by the opposite party no.1, the relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties has been admitted and it is stated that the shop in question was given on rent @ Rs. 550/- per month. It has also been asserted that the applicant no. 4 does not want to start any business rather the applicants want to let out the shop on high rent after getting the same vacated from opposite party no.2. 6. Before the Prescribed Authority, both the parties led evidence by filing affidavits in support of their respective contentions. The applicant-landlords have filed documentary evidence per list 31-C, while no documentary evidence has been led by the opposite parties. 7. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties and after perusal of the evidence, led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the applicant no. 4 is unemployed person and that the need of the applicant no.4 is bona fide and genuine. On the point of comparative hardship, the learned Prescribed Authority after detailed discussion has found that the tenants have not made any effort to search for alternate shop during the pendency of the application. The Prescribed Authority has held that the balance of comparative hardship 3 tilted in favour of the applicants. Ultimately, by order dated 30-3- 2010, the release application was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to vacate the disputed shop and handover its vacant possession to the applicants. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 30-3-2010, the opposite parties filed appeal before the District Judge, Almora. 9. By filing amendment application, additional pleas have been taken in written statement and paragraph nos. 8A, 8B and 8C were sought to be added at appellate stage in the written statement and it has been pleaded by way of amendment that the respondents are only Pujari of the temple and the property vests in Bal Bhairab Nath and they are looking after the property. The applicants are not the owner of the said property, hence their need cannot be examined. 10. A perusal of the record shows that the learned appellate court by order dated 15-5-2010 dismissed the application for amendment. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants Devi Lal Sah and another preferred Writ Petition No. 816 of 2010(M/S) before this Court. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 30-6-2010 and the order dated 15-5-2010 passed by the District Judge was set aside. The amendment application (paper no. 15-Ka) was allowed. 12. It appears that during the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 1 Devi Lal Sah had died. He was substituted by his legal heirs Smt. Uma Sah and others in appeal. It also appears that in appeal, some documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the appellants. 13. The learned District Judge heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the evidence available on record has observed that in the Khatauni filed by the appellants, 12 Muthi and 7 Muthi land has been recorded as Goot of Pujari and in the assessment 4 register of Nagar Palika, filed by the respondents, paper no. 32-C/1, Swami Hira Nath Sundar Nath son of Shankar Nath are recorded as owner of the building and Sri D.L.Sah is recorded as tenant. It has also been observed that the appellants have not disputed paper no. 32- C/1. The learned District Judge has also recorded a finding that the need of the applicant-respondents is bona fide. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by order dated 29-10-2010. 14. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate 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. 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 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.” 15. 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 5 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.” 16. I have perused the judgment and orders passed by the two courts below. There is concurrent finding of fact on the point of bona fide need that the applicant no.4-Santosh Nath is employed and the disputed premises are required to engage him in business, recorded by the two courts below. I also find that the Prescribed Authority has categorically held that the opposite parties have not made effort to search out alternate shop during the period of pendency of application. The appellate court has further discussed the additional pleas taken by the petitioners by way of amendment in the written statement. Moreover, the learned appellate court has observed in its judgment that it is the admitted case of the petitioners that the disputed shop has been given on rent to them by the applicant-respondent no. 1 Smt. Uma Nath and she realizes the rent from them, therefore, the petitioners cannot refute that the respondents are not the owners of the disputed premises. 17. The release application was indisputably moved in the year 2007 and the order was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 30- 3-2010. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 29-10-2010. The findings of both the courts below are recorded on appraisal of evidence led by the parties and both the courts have elaborately dealt with every aspect of the case in the body of the judgment and order passed by them. In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as a court to appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence, so as to arrive at a different conclusion. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the petitioners may be granted reasonable time to vacate the disputed shop. 6 19. For the reasons and discussion above, I find that the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court do not suffer from any perversity or manifest error of law. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the admission stage. 20. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Costs easy. However, the petitioners are granted six months’ time to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord- respondents before expiry of the said period, provided the petitioners furnish a written undertaking to that effect before the Prescribed Authority within a period of four weeks from today. It is further provided that the petitioners shall continue to pay/deposit the rent/damages to the respondents month to month by the seventh day of the next month for every previous month till the expiry of the aforesaid period six months. In case no undertaking is furnished by the petitioners, as directed above, the landlord-respondents would be at liberty to get the disputed premises vacated through Court in accordance with law. 21. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP