JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the trial court as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
3. It appears that the opposite party is the landlord of the disputed shop in which the petitioner is the tenant. The opposite party moved an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') for release of the disputed shop. It was alleged by the opposite parties that he purchased the land in the year 1960 and constructed his house and two shops. Out of two shops one shop was let out to the petitioner at the rent of Rs. 40 per month and another shop was let out to another tenant at the rent of Rs. 150 per month. The petitioner also purchased the land in Mohalla Saraln Subedar, Safipur, Unnao, in the year 1976. The petitioner constructed his house along with two shops facing towards road. In one of the two shops the petitioner started a workshop of Plastic goods and another shop is in possession of the petitioner in vacant position. The opposite party required the disputed shop for his own need for keeping flour and oil mill. It was also alleged that the petitioner had taken this shop for his medical profession in which he could not get success. The petitioner is not M.B.B.S. doctor but he is having B.A.M.S. degree. The defence of the petitioner before the prescribed authority was that the plaintiff has already one shop other than the disputed shop in his possession which he keeps locked and he can carry on business of floor and oil mill in that shop. It has also contended that another shop is always found locked. A commission was issued and the disputed shop was found locked. The prescribed authority recorded a finding of fact that the learned counsel for the opposite party landlord has admitted that another shop indicated by the petitioner was not sufficient to fulfil the need of the landlord and the disputed shop is the only shop which can fulfil his requirement. The prescribed authority also recorded a finding that the opposite party was carrying on a business of floor and oil mill in the back of the disputed shop and he required an additional space for extending his business. Therefore, his need was bona fide and genuine for vacation of the disputed shop. The prescribed authority has already recorded a finding that at the time of recording spot inspection by the Commissioner, the lock of the another shop of the landlord was opened by one person Ram Singh. The prescribed authority has also pointed out the admission of the petitioner that he had purchased the property and constructed the house and two shops but the construction of the shop was not complete upto the date of the filing of the objection by the petitioner before the prescribed authority. The petitioner contended before the prescribed authority that he had settled his medical practice in the disputed shop and he had earned a goodwill for the last 20 years, so he will suffer a greater hardship if, this disputed shop is released in favour of the landlord. Thus, it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was having accommodation of alternative shop in his own building and the plea of earning goodwill of the medical profession from the disputed shop, was turned down by the prescribed authority.
4. In the appeal the appellate Judge also confirmed the findings of the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority has rejected the plea of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative shop in his own building within the limit of the same municipality and therefore, he can shift his profession to his own shop.
5. On the comparative hardship both the courts below have recorded a finding that the opposite party shall suffer a greater hardship if, the disputed shop is not released in favour of the opposite party than the hardship caused to the petitioner if, the disputed shop is released in favour of the landlord. After seeing the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below I am of the view that the findings are in accordance with the Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules framed under the Act. Therefore, the findings of the two courts below are in accordance with the law based on evidence. In Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Sita Ram, 2001 (3) AWC 1997 (SC) : (2001) 4 SCC 476, it was held by the Supreme Court that the findings of fact recorded by the final court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error or law or is patently perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. Recently in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chancier Rai and Ors., JT 20O3 (6) SC 465, the Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of writ jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. It has been held that certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. It was also held that either the writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless it is found that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
6. In view of the above legal position and the findings of facts recorded by the two courts below this is not a fit case for interference.
7. In result, the writ petition is dismissed.