1 S/3 S.B. CIVILWRIT PETITION No. 2128/2008 [M/S GANESH AUTOMOBILES VS. KAMLESH & ORS.] Dated : 02.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.R.K.Thanvi for the petitioner. Mr. Sajjan Singh for the respondent. ***** This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the fact regarding bonafide necessity of Hitendra was not precisely pleaded, yet suit was decreed on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of Hitendra itself, it is contended that neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence plaintiff had submitted as to for what purposes they need the suit premises. Hence in view of the vagueness of the pleadings and the evidence the decree passed by the Rent Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is not sustainable. The other averment made by the petitioner is regarding the decree pertaining to the amount of rent found to be in default. It is contended that petitioner had undertaken repaired of basement and thereby the amount so incurred was required to be deducted from total sum but the courts below failed to consider this aspect of the 2 matter. Hence on this ground also order deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that both the courts below have recorded finding of facts and is being case of concurrent finding of facts thus such findings can be looked into by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the personal bonafide necessity of Hitendra was properly pleaded by stating it for business of machinery thus it cannot be said that fact of bonafide necessity has pleaded with vagueness. So far as the amount of rent determined, it is stated that petitioner could not prove the so called amount incurred for repair of the underground hence taking note of the evidence led by the parties, the court below rightly determined the arrears of the rent. I considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully. Application under Rent Control Act as well as the affidavit submitted to prove the contention of the applicant shows that it was categorically mentioned that the suit premises requires for starting of the business of machinery by Hitendra and the said fact has been proved in the affidavit also thus it cannot be said that the plaintiff fail to show any bonafide necessity of the suit premises by stating as to 3 for what purposes the same is required. The further fact regarding determination of the rent is concerned, perusal of the evidence shows that the petitioners fail to substantiate their claim for deduction of amount for so called repaired of basement, hence in absence of evidence, it cannot be said that whatever had been stated by the petitioner regarding deduction of amount should be accepted. In view of the above, I do not find any error in finding of facts and otherwise in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (3) SCC 524, Para 7 this Court cannot go into even errors of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227. Para 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:- “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the fact 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 purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” In view of the above discussion, as well as in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court this court while exercising 4 jurisdiction under Article 227, it cannot be interfered in the concurrent finding of facts. Thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner found devoid of any merit. Hence the same is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prayed that some reasonable time may be granted for vacating the suit premises. Looking to the request made, the petitioner is given two months time to vacate the suit premises subject to condition that complete arrears as determined by the court below is paid by the petitioner within a period of two weeks and the rent of two months as given is also paid within a period of two weeks. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta 5