JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority whereby both the authorities have allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.
2. The respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the son of the landlord has grown up and has passed in M. Com examination. He wants to start his own business in the shop in dispute. Therefore, to establish his son the landlord bona fide requires the shop in question and the need of the landlord is more pressing as compared to that of the tenant inasmuch as the tenants are carrying on business of brick kiln. It was, therefore, prayed for that the shop in question be released in favour of the landlord. It is also alleged by the landlord that when the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises they demanded Pagri (premium) for vacating the same.
3. The aforesaid application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the landlord, in fact, wanted to enhance the rent to which the tenant has not agreed, therefore, this application has been filed for mala fide intention. The tenant has further taken up the case that in fact the son of the landlord for whose need the application was filed is employed in a private firm at Delhi and is drawing salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month, whereas in the shop in question the son of the tenant is carrying on his practice of Dentist and is earning his livelihood. In case the shop in question is released in favour of the landlord the tenant is to vacate it and will suffer a loss.
4. Before the prescribed authority both the parties have adduced their respective evidence. After considering the case set up by both, landlord and tenant, and on the basis of evidence on the record the prescribed authority has arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlord is bonafide and more pressing as compared to that of the tenant. Thus the prescribed authority released the shop in question in favour of the landlord.
5. Aggrieved thereby the tenant preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. Thus this writ petition challenging the order passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued before me that the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have committed error which is manifest error of law inasmuch as they have come to the conclusion that the son of the landlord, for whose need the release of the shop was prayed for, was in fact employed in a private firm at Delhi but still the shop in question was released. Thus the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority on both the questions, namely, bona fide requirement as well as comparative hardship deserve to be quashed and the application filed by the landlord deserves to be set aside and application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act deserves to be rejected. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have considered this aspect of the argument and have recorded a finding that it has been categorically stated that the son of the landlord for the time being had joined the job which is the job of private company so that he may not sit idle " and as soon as the shop was release he would start his own business. This finding of the prescribed authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority alongwith the finding recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord as well as comparative hardship. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited one sentence or the other from the judgment here and there and tried to press that the findings arrived by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority deserve to be quashed.
7. This is settled law that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. The Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in, (2003) 6 SCC 675: 2003 SCFBRC 512, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, Sub-paras (5), (6), (7) and (8) are reproduced below, clearly held the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) 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 (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or completed argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasioned. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character."
8. Applying the guidelines and tests as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case I do not find this case to be a fit case, particularly in view of the fact that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the appellate authority on the question of bona fide requirement as well as comparative hardship, for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, has no force and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the since the petitioner's son is carrying on his profession of Dentist in the shop in question, he may be allowed some time to vacate the shop in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is granted time till 30th June 2005 to vacate the shop in question provided:
1. the petitioner furnishes undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the shop in question to the landlord on or before 30th June 2005;
2. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages calculated at the rate of rent within same period of three weeks from today, if not already paid, by either depositing the same before the prescribed authority or paying the same to the landlord-respondent and keeps on depositing the future rent/damages by first week of the succeeding month in the manner prescribed above as and when it falls due so long as the tenant remains in possession of the shop or till 30th June 2005 whichever is earlier. The amount if deposited before the prescribed authority by the petitioner-tenant, the same shall be permitted to withdraw by the landlord.
10. In the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will open to the landlord to get the order of release executed against the petitioner through process of law.
11. In view of what has been stated above the writ petition is dismissed.