WP.3379-95 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3379 OF 1995 Shri Prakash Amulrai Banswani ) Age about 43 years, Hindu, Occupation - ) business, Resident of Dreamland Apartment) Gol Maidan, Ulhasnagar-421 002, and ) presently at Cathay Cinema, Deolali, Nashik... Petitioners Vs. Ashok Lokumal Vachhani, ) Age 39 years, Hindu, Indian inhibitant ) Occupation – Business and residing at ) Cathay Cinema Compound, Manager’s ) Bungalow, Deolali Cantonment, Nashik ... Respondent *** Mr. S. P. Kanuga, for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MARCH 8, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the WP.3379-95 - 2 - petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner was owner of a Cinema Theater and a Bungalow which was situated in the premises of the said Cinema Theater. The petitioner’s case is that he had given the said Bungalow to the respondent, since he was Manager of the said Theater. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises after he resigned from the service, the petitioner filed an application against the respondent seeking eviction and claiming Rs.2,000/- per month from 1-5-1988 as compensation. The Competent Authority by his judgment and order was pleased to partly allow the application and direct the respondent to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises which was in his possession in the Cathay Cinema compound to the applicant. However, claim of the petitioner seeking compensation was not accepted. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Competent Authority of not granting compensation, petitioner has filed present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is an admitted position that during pendency of this petition, the respondent has handed over possession of the suit premises. The respondent had challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority by filing revision application in this Court. However, the said revision application was dismissed. It is submitted that the Competent WP.3379-95 - 3 - Authority has erred in not granting compensation to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent has illegally occupied the premises after he has resigned as Manager of the Cathay Cinema and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Competent Authority to issue No. 6 and pointed out that the said finding is patently illegal. 3. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have perused the judgment and order of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has taken into consideration the various documents on record and also the evidence and also the statements of the witnesses examined by both the parties and thereafter has observed that these premises were given to him as a ‘rent free accommodation’. In my view, it is not possible to interfere with the said finding which was recorded by the Competent Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Since in my view, the Competent Authority who has jurisdiction to decide the dispute has recorded the finding of fact, this Court cannot substitute its own view to a view taken by a Court of competent jurisdiction while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The The Apex Court in the case of - Surya Dev Rai, WP.3379-95 - 4 - Appellant vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, Respondents [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675]1 in paragraph 12 has observed as under- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an Appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court.” . Hence, writ petition is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.] 1 (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 675.