IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 751 of 2009 Sri Dadhich Kumar, S/O Sri Indal Prasad, R/O 21 Main Bazar, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh, District Dehradun, through Executive Officer and six others. …. Respondents. Sri Lokendra Singh & Sri Vonod Tiwari, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ravi Bahadur, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Sri Lalit Tiwari, holding brief of Sri J.P. Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 7. Date June 05, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 4017 of 2009) Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally at the admission stage. Heard. This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15-11-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Rishikesh, District Dehradun and order dated 21-03-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge Dehradun. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case. iii) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner/defendant is tenant of a part of property bearing no. 21 Main Bazar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, which happened to be a Dharmshala in the name and style “Mahadev Wali Dharmashala”. All the trustees of the Dharamashala having been died, the State Government had taken over charge of entire Dharamshala through Nagar Palika, Rishikesh and the petitioner/defendant became the tenant of the Nagar Palika Parishad since 14-10-1988, i.e. the date of vesting of Dharamshala and the petitioner began to pay the rent to Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh continuously. According to the petitioner, he was paying the rent to the respondents prior to the taking over the property in suit by Nagar Palika in S.C.C. Suit No.1 of 2000 and in that suit, the plaintiff- respondents have alleged that there were dues of rent against the petitioner from 1 – 10-1988. The petitioner started to pay the rent to Nagar Palika- respondent no.1. From a perusal of record, it reveals that the respondent nos. 2 to 7 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2000 against the petitioner in the court of Judge, S.C.C. (Civil Judge Junior Division Rishikesh) for decree of eviction and recovery of rent. The petitioner was given the accommodation in question on rent @ Rs.30/- per month by the landlord Sri Ram Swarup Gaur who died on 29-5-1991 leaving behind the respondent nos. 2 to 7 as his legal heirs/landlords. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed rent for three years at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month, i.e. 1080/-, water tax of Rs. 135/-, sewer tax Rs. 54/- and Rs. 108/- as house tax and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future till the date of delivery of possession as well as decree of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the suit filed his written statement. He denied the ownership of the respondent-plaintiffs. It was alleged in the written statement that the petitioner has been depoisiting the rent regularly with the Nagar Palika Rishikesh because the ownership vested in the State since 14-10-1988. It was also alleged that the petitioner is not a defaulter of the accommodation in suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial court framed necessary points for determination in the suit. The plaintiffs examined P.W. 1 Bijendra Kumar Gaur and P.W. 2 Rajesh Agrawal in oral evidence. Documentary evidence was also led by the plaintiffs. The petitioner-defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also filed documentary evidence in the suit. After hearing both the parties, the learned J.S.C.C. came to the conclusion that the respondent nos. 2 to 7 are the owner and landlords of the property in suit and the petitioner is a tenant. It was also held that the defendant had not deposited any rent since 1-10-1988 and his tenancy was terminated through legal notice dated 10-4-1994 sent to the petitioner. It was also held that the petitioner was defaulter in payment of rent. It was further held that the petitioner has made material alterations in the accommodation in suit without the permission or consent of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the suit for eviction and recovery of rent and damages was decreed against the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 15-11-2006. Aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision before the revisional court, which was registered as SCCR No. 31 of 2006, Dadhich Kumar Vs. Smt. Uchchhav Rani and others. the revisional court after hearing both the parties did not find favour with the petitioner and upheld the findings recorded by the J.S.C.C. and dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 21-3-2009, which gave rise to the present writ petition. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 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 sent to find out whether there is 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 Article3 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate court 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 not 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.” In the case “Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakesh” [(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.” Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the judgment passed by the two courts below, it is obvious that the learned Judge, S.C.C. as well as the revisional court has fully considered the evidence both oral and documentary, which was led by both the parties and on the basis of evidence, the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent and that the petitioner has carried out material alteration in the suit accommodation without the permission of the landlords. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below. There in no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments. The writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed outright. During the case of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for reasonable time to vacate the premises in suit. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been tenant of the suit accommodation for a considerable period, it would be in the fitness of things that the petitioner be granted one year’s time from today to vacate the premises and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the landlords. Learned counsel for the landlords-respondents no. 2 to 7 has submitted that the petitioner may be asked to give an undertaking in that regard before the learned Judge, S.C.C. in case time is granted to him to vacate the premises in suit. The writ petition is dismisses. Costs easy. However, the petitioner is granted one year’s time to vacate the suit premises and to deliver its peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent- landlords on payment of damages as awarded by the learned Judge, S.C.C., provided the petitioner furnishes a written undertaking to that effect before the learned Judge, S.C.C. concerned within a period of eight weeks from today and continues to pay damages/rent month to month by the 7th of each moth for the previous month. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP