1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Prakash Chand. Versus The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3295/2008 ... Date of Order: May 21, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-11-2006 (Annx.2) passed by the respondent No.2 the Rent Tribunal, Pali (for short, “the Rent Tribunal” hereinafter) and the judgment dated 25-3-2008 (Annx.4) passed in Rent Control Appeal No.2/2007 by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali (for short, “the Appellate Tribunal” hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Carefully gone through the order passed by the respondent No.2 the Rent Tribunal and respondent No.3 the Appellate Tribunal and the material annexed with the writ 2 petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 Kanti Lal, the landlord, is having two vacant shops in his possession and, therefore, the ground seeking eviction, i.e., that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for use and occupation of himself and his family members, has ceased to exist and, therefore, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, is contrary, to the facts on record. Learned counsel has heavily relied on the photographs of the premises taken on record by the Appellate Tribunal on an application moved by the petitioner under O.41 R.27 CPC. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the Rent Tribunal framed as many as five issues. Issues No.1 and 3 were decided against the petitioner; issue No.4 was decided in favour of the respondent-landlord; however issue No.2 was decided against the respondent-landlord. Issue No.1 relates to the requirement of the landlord of the rented premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of himself for running tailoring business in the disputed shop. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced before the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the petitioner- tenant. 3 On an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, during pendency of the appeal, an application under O.41 R.27 CPC was filed by the petitioner seeking to take on record the additional evidence, i.e., the photographs annexed with the application. The respondent-landlord did not object in taking the photographs on record and, therefore, by the order dated 7-1-2008, the photographs filed by the petitioner were taken on record. The petitioner did not seek to lead additional evidence except placing on record the photographs. The Appellate Tribunal, on re- appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties before the Rent Tribunal and even considering the photographs, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant failed to establish that the respondent-landlord has an alternative accommodation/shop to carry on the business in tailoring and affirmed the findings on issue No.1 record by the Rent Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal on other issues and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal have not been challenged during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Tribunal could have remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the photographs placed on record during pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal categorically held that from the photographs placed on record, it cannot be said that the 4 premises shown in the photographs are situated in the same market, whereas the respondent-landlord has been working in a rented shop. The disputed shop is situated in Sarrafa Bazar and the respondent-landlord has been working in the rented shop of Harisingh and Manohar Lal. Even from the photographs, it has not been established whether shops shown in the photographs, are part of the residential house or any part of the market. Except the photographs, there is absolutely no other oral or documentary evidence showing that the respondent-landlord has acquired an alternative accommodation/shop to run the business. The Appellate Authority did not find any error in the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal holding that the respondent-landlord is entitled for the possession over the disputed shop for his reasonable and bonafide use. On close scrutiny of the material available on record, it is clear that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Tribunals below and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Tribunals cannot be said to be perverse or there is no evidence to support it. It is settled law that this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exercises supervisory power and not the powers of an appellate court. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Ahber (D) through L/Rs., (2000) 3 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdictioin 5 of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not appellate but supervisory. It can interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the lower Court/Tribunal unless there is no evidence to support the finding or the finding is perverse. In the instant case, the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal are based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence on record and, thus, it cannot be said to be either perverse or erroneous warranting interference in the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. RP/mcs 6 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.6063/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3295/2008 (Prakash Chand Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali & ors.) Date of Order: May 21, 2008 HON'BLE MR. H.R. PANWAR, J. Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed summarily, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. RP/mcs