IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1213 of 2002 Ravi Kumar Vishnoi Son of Sri Chandrapal Vishnoi, Resident of Mohalla Bhoop Singh, Jaspur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. District Judge Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Prescribed Authority/A.C.J.M. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Virendra Prakash Singhal, Son of Sri Jai Jai Ram Singhal, Resident of Mohalla Bhoop Singh, Jaspur, Tehsil- Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Respondents. Sri J.C.Belwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Date August 12, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside the judgment and order dated 27-11-2002 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no.1 and the judgment and order dated 5-7-2002 (Annexure-4 to the petition) passed by respondent no.2. By the order dated 5-7-2002, the application of the landlord for release of the shop in question moved 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 by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar and the petitioner-tenant was directed to vacate the shop in question within a period of thirty days, as mentioned in the order. By the order dated 27-11-2002, the appeal preferred against the order dated 5-7- 2002 was dismissed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. 2 Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the respondent no. 3-landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for release of the disputed shop on the ground of his bona fide need to start his jewellery business, alleging therein that one Kripa Ram was a tenant of the disputed shop till 9-11-1982 at a monthly rent of Rs. 17-58 P. and after his death, the present petitioner was held to be a tenant of the disputed shop as per order dated 24-2-1999 passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition and that the landlord has independent business of his own. According to the landlord, the tenant possessed 9-10 shops of his own and out of them two shops were vacant at present. The disputed shop is not being used by the tenant and the same has been locked. The tenant is demanding amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as gratification (Pagari) for vacating the disputed shop. The application was resisted by the tenant-petitioner. He admitted the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. It was also pleaded that the disputed shop is joint property of the landlord and other co-landlords but they all have not filed the application for release, therefore, the application is not maintainable. It was also asserted that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the application was moved just to harass the tenant. Both the parties led documentary evidence as well as oral evidence in the shape of affidavits before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the evidence has recorded a clear-cut finding that the landlord has bona fide requirement for the disputed shop. It was also held that the disputed shop fell to the share of the landlord 3 in a family settlement. It has also been held that the landlord would suffer greater hardship if the premises in question is not released in his favour as compared to the hardship of the petitioner. Accordingly, by order dated 5-7-2002, the application for release of the landlord-respondent no. 3 has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2002, Ravi Kumar Vishnoi Vs. Virendra Kumar Singhal. However, after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence led by the parties, the learned appellate Court also did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the appeal holding that the need of the landlord- respondent no.3 is bona fide and that the balance of comparative hardship also tilted in favour of the landlord. The main ground of challenge raised in the writ petition are that the courts below failed to consider the comparative hardship of the petitioner vis-à-vis the landlord. The Prescribed Authority also failed to take into consideration that the landlord had constructed ten new shops in Jaspur, which were given on rent. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. The allegations made in the memo of petition have been categorically denied. It is stated that the disputed shop has come to the exclusive share of the landlord-respondent no. 3 in the family partition. It is also stated that the alleged 10 shops were constructed by Sri Jai Jai Ram Singhal and Mahender Prakash Singhal and not by the respondent no.3. It is also stated that the petitioner had newly constructed 9-10 shops in Jaspur. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by the petitioner. Along with the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has filed the copies 4 of assessment order of Nagar Palika in respect of House Nos. 745, 765 and 841 allegedly belonging to the respondent no.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material placed before this Court including the counter affidavit, the rejoinder affidavit and the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 is that of tenant and landlord. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 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. The Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675 has held 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.” 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 5 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.” In the above premises, it has only to be examined whether the courts below have committed any manifest error of law or the jurisdictional error or has based its findings without any evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant-petitioner. This contention of the petitioner is not at all convincing. The Prescribed Authority has framed two points for consideration- one regarding bona fide need of the landlord and the other comparative hardship, at page 5 of the impugned judgment and order. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority goes to show that the affidavits filed in evidence were elaborately considered by the Prescribed Authority at pages 5 to 10 of the order and on appraisal of evidence, it has been held that the need of the respondent no. 3-landlord is bona fide to run his business. The Prescribed Authority has also recorded a finding of fact that the opposite party-petitioner has got two vacant shops of his own out of 9-10 shops to shift his business. It has also been held that those shops are situated in the vicinity of the disputed shop. The point of comparative hardship has been dealt 6 with at page 11 of the impugned order. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of evidence has also held that the disputed shop has come to the exclusive share of the landlord-respondent no.3 in the family settlement. In addition to that, the learned District Judge has also discussed the evidence of the parties and has also recorded his independent findings on the points of bona fide need of the landlord and comparative hardship. All the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition had been dealt with by the learned appellate Court in the order dated 27-11-2002. Thus, it is evident that there are concurrent findings of fact on the points of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by the two courts below. Both the courts below have recorded its finding on proper appraisal of evidence. I do not find any perversity or manifest error of law or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. There is no scope of interference in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is granted three months’ time to vacate the disputed shop from today and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent no.3, failing which the landlord- respondent no.3 would be at liberty to get the possession of the disputed shop through Court in accordance with law. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP