JUDGMENT J.C. Gupta, J.
1. This is landlord's petition.
2. Shop No. 331/7, M.S.K. Road, Sharali, Muzaffarnagar is the subject-matter of the application for release moved under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority. The shop in question was required for the petitioner's son Pradeep Kumar as he wanted to start a new business of crockery and general merchandise because the present business of electrical goods which was being carried on in another Shop No. 331/2, Shamli was not earning good profits and the said Pradeep Kumar wanted to augment his income. It was alleged that the said shop measured 6' x 8" and was too small for setting up the business of crockery and general merchandise. The shop in question being of a big size would suitably serve the need of Pradeep Kumar to run the proposed business. The shop presently in occupation of the landlord wherein Pradeep Kumar was carrying on business was also offered to the tenant to shift his business therein.
3. The release application was contested tooth and nail by the tenant respondent. It was pleaded that he has been tenant since the year 1966. The family of the landlord is a Joint family and they own extensive properties. Some of the premises were in occupation of the tenants and the others were in the occupation of the landlord. The tenant was running the business of cycle and rickshaw repairing as well as of gas welding. He was also giving rickshaw on hire and he would suffer irreparable Injury in case he was evicted from the shop in question. The tenant further alleged that Shop No. 340/8 was in the tenancy of Kundan Lal. The shop had three apartments. A portion thereof was vacated and given to the landlord through a mutual agreement and the portion which came into occupation of the landlord was let out to Suresh Panwari after getting a new shop constructed whose present number is 331/1. Another shop was constructed bearing No. 331/2 in which the landlord and his son is carrying on business of electrical goods. The family of the landlord is also carrying on business of Radio, T.V., Fridge etc. In shop No. 331/5. The business of furniture is also being carried on by the Joint family of the landlord in Shop No. 331. It is a very big shop having three shutters and all the sons of the landlord were engaged in that business. In short the case of the tenant was that the disputed shop was not at all required by the landlord and he merely wanted to get the tenant evicted since he has been tenant for a long time. As regards the alternative accommodation, it was pleaded by the tenant that the said shop is too small and is not faced on main road and is not suitable for him to carry on his business.
4. On a consideration of evidence and material brought on record, the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 24.1.1984 allowed the landlord's application for the release of the shop. The tenant respondent filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the same has been allowed by the lower appellate authority, respondent No. 1 by the order dated 8.5.1985 and the claim of the landlord for the release of the disputed shop has been rejected. By means of this writ petition, the order of the lower appellate authority has been challenged.
5. Learned counsel for the landlord petitioner argued before this Court that while arriving at a finding regarding bona fide need, the lower appellate court has misconstrued the affidavit of the landlord inasmuch as it failed to take into account that there was only a typing error. In para 1 1 of the affidavit it was averred that two younger sons of the applicant, Pradeep Kuniar aged 21 years and Mukesh aged about 19 years have stopped studies and are established in business. It has rightly been argued by the petitioner's counsel that in the last line of the aforesaid paragraph, there occurred a typing error and the words 'to be' were omitted accldently before the word 'established' and this line of the paragraph cannot be read in isolation with other averments made in the same affidavit and if one goes through the entire affidavit, there can be no other inference that the landlord claimed the shop in dispute for enlarging the business of his son Pradeep Kumar. However, this Court finds that even if that view of the lower appellate court is overlooked, the finding recorded on the question of bona. fide need is supported by other evidence on record. It was not the landlord's case that his son Pradeep was sitting idle and was carrying on no business. As per his own case, the said son is doing business of electrical goods in a shop in the same building. The case set up was that the said son wanted to augment his Income by starting a new business of crockery and general merchandise in addition to the existing business of electrical goods which is being carried on by him in Shop No. 331/2 in the same building, because the said shop was a small one and not fit for carrying on the business of crockery and general merchandise, whereas the shop in question is a big one and the requirement of the son would sufficiently be met In case the said shop is released in his favour: The tenant's defence was that the shop which is being occupied by Pradeep Kumar at present was not suitable to him for shifting his business therein from the shop in question. Learned counsel for the tenant Invited the attention of the Court to Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules framed under the Act which runs as under :
"While considering an application for release under clause (a) of Section 21 in respect of a building let out for purposes of any business, the Prescribed Authority shall also have regard to such facts as the following-
6. A bare reading of this sub-rule would Indicate that when the conditions contained therein are fulfilled, the need of the landlord has to be given due weight. However, this sub-rule would be attracted only when the tenant has available with him some suitable accommodation to which he can shift his business without substantial loss. It would thus follow that availability of a suitable accommodation with the tenant is not by Itself sufficient to apply this sub-rule and, it has to be found out further that the tenant can shift his business without substantial loss. In the present case, the finding recorded by the Court below is that the said accommodation is not suitable to the tenant for shifting his business therein. Undisputedly, the tenant respondent has been occupying the shop in question since long and the attention of the Court has rightly been invited to Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules. It has also been found as a fact by the lower court that the petitioner and his sons constitute a Joint family and the business run by his sons in other properties is a Joint family business. The lower appellate court has also held that Pradeep Kumar was also carrying on business Jointly with his brother in the firm Shiva Steel. The landlord has extensive properties Including a number of shops wherein members of his family are carrying on business. The finding on the question of bonafde need which has been recorded against the landlord-petitioner is based on appraisal of evidence and being a finding of fact, this Court would not reappraise the evidence in order to arrive at its own conclusion different from that reached by the Court below. In the case of Munni Lal and others v. Prescribed Authority and others, AIR 1978 SC 29, it was held that "It is not for the High Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to re-appraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority."
7. No authority is required for the proposition that findings recorded on the question of bona fide need as well as on the question of comparison of hardship are findings of fact and if they are supported by the evidence on record, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not re-appreciate the evidence. It is not for the High Court to re-appraise the evidence and to form its own opinion whether in the circumstances of the case. It considers the need of the landlord to be more pressing and genuine than that of the tenant. The duty to appreciate the evidence is exclusively assigned by law to the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority under the Act and the findings of fact recorded by the Court below will not be vitiated if there is legal evidence to support them, notwithstanding that some of the reasons given in support thereof are not very convincing. It is also well established that while exercising powers in writ proceedings a finding of fact recorded by the courts below cannot be substituted by the High Court by its own finding of fact even on the ground that another more convincing view is possible from the evidence on record. It has to be shown that such findings suffer from a manifest error of law before this Court is called upon to make interference in those findings.
8. In the present case no such error of law could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart form the fact that the finding on the question of bona fide need has been recorded against the landlord, the other issue Involved in the case regarding comparison of hardship has also been decided against the petitioner. While answering the said question, the lower appellate court has weighed the facts and circumstances appearing in the case. As already stated above, the tenant respondent has been in occupation of the disputed shop since long. The landlord and his other family members are carrying on extensive business in a number of premises owned by the landlord. His son Pradeep Kumar is already engaged in business of electrical goods and as per the finding of the Court below he is also engaged in the business carried on under the name of the firm Shlv Steel. The finding on the question of comparison of hardship has been recorded by the lower appellate court after taking into consideration sub-rule (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules and the same cannot be said to be erroneous or suffering from any error of law. A small shop which was offered by the petitioner to the tenant has been held to be not suitable to him for shifting his business without substantial loss. The case of the landlord was that the said shop did not open on the main road and, therefore, it was not suitable for the son of the landlord for setting up the business of crockery and general merchandise in that shop. It was also the case of the landlord that the disputed shop is bigger than the shop in occupation of the landlord. When admittedly the said shop which is in occupation of the landlord does not open on the main road, it could adversely affect the business of tenant also and, therefore, it cannot be said that his shifting there would be without substantial loss to him. No reliable evidence has also been brought on record to show that Income earned by the landlord's son in the alleged small shop was not sufficient to cater his need. The finding on the question of comparative hardship is also a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and is not liable to be disturbed in this writ petition seeking indulgence of this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. The order of the lower appellate court, for the reasons stated above, requires no interference and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.