IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1079 of 2004. Shri Gyan Chand S/O Late Shri Roop Lal. … Petitioner. Vs. Additional District Judge/FTC-III, Dehradun and four others. …Respondents. . Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. I.P.Kohli, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Date March 04, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24- 1-2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in P.A.Case No. 67 of 1996, Smt. Kanta Khanna and others Vs. Shri Gyan Chand and the order dated 25-10-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. III, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2000, Shri Gyan Chand Vs. Smt. Kanta Khanna and others. By the order dated 24-1-2000, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application for release of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and directed the petitioner-Opposite Party to vacate the disputed property and deliver its possession to the respondent-applicants. By the order dated 25-10-2004, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed in respect of part of property no. 1991, Karanpur, Dehradun consisting of one room, latrine and Verandah (for short the property in 2 dispute) by the applicant-respondents no. 3 to 5 herein against the petitioner-opposite party alleging therein that the applicant are the owner/landlords of the property in dispute and the petitioner-Opposite Party is the tenant thereof on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/-. The family of the applicants consists of three members and the accommodation available with the landlords is quite insufficient. The application for release was moved on the ground of bona fide and genuine need. 4. The release application was resisted by the petitioner- opposite party, who filed his objections and admitted the relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties. It was also admitted that one room, latrine and Verandah are in his tenancy, but denied that the rent of the property in dispute is Rs. 300/- per month, rather the rent of the property in dispute was Rs. 50/- per month inclusive of all taxes. One part of property no. 192, Karanpur, Dehradun consisting of one room, Verandah and latrine is in occupation of the applicants- respondent nos. 3 to 5. It was also denied that the accommodation in possession of the landlords is insufficient. The ground of bona fide need was also denied. It was also asserted that the applicant no.2- Rajesh Khanna is engaged in service in Indore and has settled there. It was also asserted that mostly, the applicant no.1 Smt. Kanta Khanna used to live with applicant no.2. As such, they have no bona fide need of the property in dispute. The landlords intend to sell the property in dispute after the same is released. It was further asserted that the applicants were the owner of property no. 193-Karanpur, Dehradun and there was no tenant therein. One Rameshwar Nath Khanna was the owner of property no. 192-Karanpur. To get the property in dispute vacated, the applicants and Shri Rameshwar Nath Khanna exchanged their properties by executing an exchange deed. It was also asserted that earlier the property in dispute was under the occupation of custodian and in the year 1947 the father of the opposite party and after his death, the mother of the opposite party were the tenants in the property in dispute on a monthly rental of Rs. 5, 14 Anna. After the death of his mother, the petitioner-O.P. became the tenant of the property in dispute at the monthly rent of Rs. 35/- and in the year 3 1965, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month. Since then the petitioner is in occupation of the property in dispute. 5. Before the Prescribed Authority, the applicants- respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed replication and denied the fact that the opposite party-petitioner is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- inclusive of all taxes. It was stated that neither the applicant no. 2 is in service in Indore nor he has settled there. It was also denied that the applicants and Rameshwar Nath Khanna had executed any exchange deed in order to evict the opposite party-petitioner. It was further denied that the applicants want to sell the property in dispute after getting the same released. It was also denied that since the year 1981, the opposite party has strained relations with his wife, who is living separately from him and is not a member of his family. 6. In support of their respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits as well as documentary evidence before the Prescribed Authority. 7. It appears that on the date fixed for hearing of arguments i.e. 10-1-2000, neither the petitioner-opposite party nor his counsel was present. The learned Prescribed heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants-respondents. 8. The learned Prescribed Authority after perusing the evidence led by the parties has recorded a finding of fact that the applicant-landlords have bona fide and genuine need for the property in dispute as they have insufficient residential accommodation in their possession. The Prescribed Authority has also observed that the petitioner has acquired property no. 143/1-Karanpur, Dehradun in the name of his wife but has not stated that he had given divorce to his wife, therefore, it was found that the wife of the petitioner shall be deemed to be family member of the petitioner and the petitioner has alternate accommodation to live in. Learned Prescribed Authority has also observed that the opposite party has not made any effort to search 4 out any alternate accommodation since the year 1996, therefore, it was held that the balance of comparative hardship also tilted in favour of the landlords-respondents nos. 3 to 5. Consequently, the release application was allowed by order dated 24-1-2000. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred an appeal, which was registered as R.C.A. No. 14 of 2000. The appeal was finally heard by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C. III, Dehradun. 10. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner filed paper no. 27-Ka which is assessment of house No. 176/176-Karanpur, Dehradun wherein the name of Smt. Chandrakanta Khanna is also recorded. The petitioner also filed an affidavit that the applicants- respondents are occupying property no. 176/176, Karanpur, Dehradun. On the other hand, the respondents-applicants have controverted this fact by filing affidavit paper no. 30-Ka as well the will executed by Smt. Morni Devi on 28-7-1976 and the family settlement dated 6-4- 1982. 11. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the evidence available on record, learned appellate court has recorded its independent finding on the point of bona fide need and has observed in paragraph no. 16 of the order dated 25-10-2004 as under:- “16. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is clear that the applicants are the owners of only property no. 192, Karanpur, Dehradun and they do not have any other property except this property anywhere and this fact has not been proved that applicant no.2-Sri Rajesh Khanna is residing at Indore and doing service there. Therefore, the property in dispute is bonafidely required by the applicants.” 12. On the point of comparative hardship, learned appellate court has observed inter alia in paragraph 17, that “the appellant has acquired property no. 143/1, Karanpur, Dehradun in the name of his 5 wife. Although, he has stated that he has strained relations with his wife, but he has not stated that he has given divorce to his wife and since his wife is his family member, therefore, it will be considered that he has acquired the said property. He has also not filed any evidence that he has strained relations with his wife because his sons, who are alleged to have been living with his wife, have not filed any affidavit to substantiate the contention of the appellant. He has also not made any effort for the alternative accommodation, while the case is pending since 1998.” 13. The learned appellate court has also categorically held in paragraph no. 18 of the order that the applicants have bona fide need for the property in dispute and that if the same is not released, the applicants will suffer hardship and if the property in dispute is released, the appellant-petitioner will suffer no hardship because he already has a house in the name of his wife in the same locality and he can easily shift there. Ultimately, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by a detailed order dated 25-10-2004. 14. This writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority is against the evidence and perverse. 15. On behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5, counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit. 16. I have perused the judgment and orders passed by the two courts below. I have also gone through the material placed before this Court. 17. 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 6 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.” 18. 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.” 19. From a perusal of the impugned orders, I find that there is concurrent finding of fact on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardship. Moreover, in the case at hand, both the courts below on the basis of evidence on record have held that the petitioner has admittedly acquired property no. 143/1-Karanpur, Dehradun in the name of his wife. As such the petitioner has alternative accommodation to shift there. The release application was 7 undisputedly moved by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the year 1996. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 24-1-2000 and the appeal preferred against that order was dismissed as far back as 25-10-2004 by the appellate court. Due to pendency of this writ petition, the property in dispute appears to be still in occupation of the petitioner. A period of more than 14 years has already elapsed since the application for release was moved by the respondent nos. 3 to 4 in the year 1996. 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. 20. 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. 21. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is granted three months’ time to vacate the property in dispute and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord- respondents nos. 3 to 5 before expiry of the said period, provided the petitioner continues 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 three months. 22. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 23. Interim order dated 4-11-2004 passed by this Court is vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP