1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14072/2010 Suresh Kumar Vs Rent Appellant Tribunal, Jaipur & anr 1.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Sunil Kumar Jain - for the petitioner BY THE COURT: By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal so as the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. Aforesaid orders were passed on an application seeking eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ( for short 'the Act'). Application was allowed on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. On appeal maintained by the petitioner herein, order of the Rent Tribunal was affirmed. Petitioner has thus challenged both the orders. It is urged that bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff's son was accepted though his son was not produced in cross examination thus the case for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity should not have been accpeted. Hence, 2 both the orders passed by the Tribunals below deserve to be set aside. I have considered the arguments urged before me. It ; is a case where there exist concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below. The issue as to whether there exist bona fide personal necessity was elaborately discussed and decided by the Rent Tribunal so as the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Plaintiff's son knowing the computer work, requires a shop to do his business therein. Aforesaid fact remained proved thus order of eviction was passed taking it to be a case of bona fide personal necessity. Cross examination of witness is discretionary as it is under summary proceedings and the fact aforesaid was proved by other witnesses who were duly cross examined. The finding of fact cannot be challenged unless it is perverse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sadhana Lodh Vs National Insurance Company Limited & anr” [2003 (3) SCC 524]. It was held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal 3 purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. 8.For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before the High Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and for that reason, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it would be open to the insurer to file an appeal if it is permissible under the law.” In the light of aforesaid judgment, discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for deciding question of fact. I, otherwise, do not find any error or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma