IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 45 of 2011 Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and three others. … Petitioners. Versus Smt. Jayanti Pande and two others. … Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.C.S.Rawat & Mr. Anirudh Bhatt, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondents. Date February 24, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Vacation Application No. 1191 of 2011) Learned counsel for the petitioners files rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally today at the admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. By means of the writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment/order dated 22-4-2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital (for short Prescribed Authority) in Rent Control Case No. 2 of 2006 Smt. Jayanti Pandey Vs. Ashok Sharma and others as well as the order dated 20-11-2010 passed by the Additional District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 2008 (contained as Annexure No. 3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition). By the order dated 22-4-2008, the release application moved by respondent no. 1 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( for short the Act) was allowed and the petitioners were directed to vacate the disputed building, which shall be referred hereinafter as disputed property, within a period of 2 60 days and to handover possession thereof to the applicant. By order dated 20-11-2010, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed with costs as mentioned in the impugned order. 4. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the respondent no.1-landlord filed an application for release of the disputed property under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act alleging therein that she is the owner of the disputed property, situate on ground floor of ‘Shyam Bhawan’ near Government Girls Inter College Tallital (Nainital) and the applicant-landlord inherited the said property on the death of original owner Ram Datt Pandey on 6-5-1986; that the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein were given the disputed property on annual rent at the rate of Rs. 250/-; that the husband of the respondent no.1 left behind him, his wife respondent no.1, son Mohit Pandey, and daughters, namely, Km. Chandra Pandey, Km. Jyoti Pandey, Smt. Sharda Pant, Smt. Vimla Pant, Smt. Bina Pant and Smt. Kiran Pant as his legal heirs. The release application was moved for bona fide need of the respondent no.1 and her other children, who are residing with her and particularly for the use of married son Mohit Pandey. It was also alleged that the family members of the respondent no. 1 are having high status and living standard and have got large social circle. 5. The petitioner-tenants resisted the release application by filing their written statement and denied the bona fide need of the applicant-respondent no.1 inter alia on the ground that the respondent no. 1 and her family members have sufficient accommodation with them and that the respondent no. 1 got released one more suite, which was earlier under the tenancy of Chandra Shekhar Kholia on the basis of compromise. It was also asserted that the marriage of the son of the applicant had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce and he does not have bona fide need for the additional accommodation. Respondent no. 2 also contested the application by filing his separate written statement 3 and he also took similar pleas as that of the petitioners herein. He like the petitioners also admitted that he is a joint tenant along with the petitioners in the disputed property after the death of his father late Kailash Chandra Sharma, the original tenant, who died in the year 1964. 6. Respondent no. 3-Amrita Pandey also filed her written statement and denied the averments made in the application and she also took similar ground as were taken by the respondent no.1. 7. In support of her case, the respondent no. 1 filed her own affidavit and affidavits of Mohit Pandey, Km. Jyoti Pandey, Km. Chandra Pandey and one Leela Rawat with paper no. 22-C. On the other hand, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 filed their affidavits before the Prescribed Authority. 8. The learned Prescribed Authority framed three points for determination. First point relates to joint tenants or co-tenants. Second point related to the explanation of Section 21(1) of the Act on account of construction of his own house by respondent no. 2 and the third point related to bona fide need of the applicant- respondent no.1 and comparative hardship. 9. The Prescribed Authority after elaborate discussion of the evidence led by the parties has held on Point No.1 that the legal heirs of the deceased tenant Kailash Chandra Sharma are joint tenants of the disputed property. On point No. 2 also, the learned Prescribed Authority did not find favour with the petitioners and held that Explanation (i)) appended to Section 21(1) of the Act is not attracted in the case at hand. 10. The Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need has held that the applicant-respondent no. 1 has bona fide need for release of the disputed property. On the point of comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority has observed that 4 no averment was made by the opposite parties as to how they would suffer hardship if the disputed property is released. It has also been observed at page 16 of the judgment that the opposite parties are living in the disputed property since 1964 and till the date of order i.e. 22-4-2008, they have not made any effort for alternate accommodation. Accordingly, it was held that the balance of comparative hardship tilted in favour of the respondent no.1- applicant and the application for release was allowed by order dated 22-4-2008. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was heard and decided by the Additional District Judge/I Fast Track Court, Nainital. The appellate court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties has also recorded its independent finding on all the three points, which arose for consideration before the Prescribed Authority and has ultimately dismissed the appeal by order dated 20-11-2010. 12. This writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the respondent no.1-applicant has no bona fie requirement for the disputed property and the release application has wrongly been allowed by the Prescribed Authority. 13. The respondent no. 1 has filed counter affidavit, wherein the averments made in the writ petition have been denied on all material issues. It has been stated in paragraph no. 7 that the son of respondent no. 1 Mohit Pandey is working a non- governmental organization (N.G.O.) and is married to Smt. Bandana Pande and there is no sufficient accommodation for the young married couple and that Mohit Pandey requires one separate room/hall to fulfill his official obligations and for discharging his responsibilities. 14. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners the contents of paragraph no. 7 have been partially admitted. But it is 5 stated that the need set up is totally flimsy and articificial. However no specific averment has been made as to how the son of the respondent no.1-Mohit Pande has no bona fide and genuine need for the disputed property to meet his residential requirement. 15. I have perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned orders passed by the two courts below. 16. 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.” 17. 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 6 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.” 18. From a perusal of the orders passed by the two courts below, it is evident that the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court have recorded independent findings on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardship, which are findings of fact. This court cannot re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence like a court of appeal to arrive at a different conclusion. Both the courts below have elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and the impugned orders have been based on appraisal of evidence. The findings recorded by the two courts below do not require any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. I do not find any perversity or manifest error of law in the orders impugned. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. 19. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. However, the petitioners are granted three months’ time to vacate the disputed property and deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent no.1 provided the petitioners continues to pay to the respondent no. 1 an amount of Rs. 250/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the disputed property, as directed in the interim order dated 6-1-2011 passed by this Court, by the seventh day of succeeding month. In case of default, the respondent no.1 would be at liberty to get the disputed property vacated in accordance with law. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP