JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority/VIth Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra allowing the release application of the respondent-landlord, affirmed vide judgment and order dated 6.4.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Agra.
2. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus:
Respondent-landlord moved release application, registered as P.A. Case No. 57 of 1997 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he is owner and landlord of the disputed shop in which the petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 10 per month, who is carrying on seasonal business of making earthen toys. The family of the landlord consists of two sons and a married daughter. It is averred in the application that his eldest son Sri Manish Kumar passed B.Sc. in 1991 but could not get any job as such the landlord wants to establish him in the disputed shop for general merchandise business. It is also averred that apart from disputed shop, no other shop is available to him; and that the tenant has got another shop adjacent to shop in dispute. where he may shift his business.
3. The tenant-petitioner contested the release application by filing written statement denying the averments contained in the release application. He alleged that the landlord was co-owner of the disputed shop and that rent of not only the disputed shop but all the three shops in the tenancy of the petitioner was Rs. 10 per month.
4. It is alleged that the description of the disputed shop given in the plaint was incorrect; that he is carrying on business of making toys from the disputed shop for the last about 60 years and that his business of not seasonal. The landlord is leading a retired life having a monthly rental income of Rs. 5,000 besides yearly agricultural Income of about Rs. 10,000; that the landlord has got huge properties in Jauhari Bazar and Kasaeewada. It is stated that it is unbelievable that his eldest son Sri Manish Kumar who has passed LL.B and is pracitising lawyer would start business of general merchandise from the disputed shop and that in the residential portion, the landlord has got many rooms, as such, his need was not bonafide or genuine.
5. Both the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective cases.
6. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of the landlord vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2000 and Rent Appeal No. 182 of 2000 preferred by the tenant against the said judgment and decree has also been dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and order dated 6.4.2002.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and decree, the petitioner-tenant has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of instant writ petition. Contentions of Counsel for the petitioner:
8. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the present proceedings, Sri Sheetal Prasad, advocate has vacated two shops in his possession and shifted his office to his residence. The vacated shops have been let out to Sri Dwarika Prasad by the landlord after accepting huge pagri. One more shop was also let out by him to one sardarji. He urged that had the need of the landlord been genuine, he would not have let out those shops or at least one shop in which Sri Manish Kumar could be settled if he had really an aptitude to settle himself in business.
He also urged that Sri Manish Kumar is a practising lawyer dealing with the taxation matters in the civil court. Thus, he is not supposed to settle himself in business of general merchandise having no experience in such trade. He further contended that Sri Manish Kumar had passed LL.B examination way back in 1991 but the release application was moved in 1999, which makes it clear that he had no intention to start business. He assailed the impugned judgments and decree passed by the courts below on the ground that comparative hardship of tenant was greater than that of landlord. He submitted that two shops are already in possession of the landlord and with a view to evict the petitioner from the disputed shop, which is only source of livelihood of the petitioner, the landlord has established a fictitious case of establishing Sri Manish Kumar in business.
Contentions of counsel for the respondent:
9. Per contra, it has been contended by counsel for the respondent-landlord that the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide. He urged that both the courts below have arrived to this conclusion, after considering the evidence, that though Sri Manish Kumar is registered as an advocate but he is sitting idle having no work and consequently no source of income. He is an advocate only for the name sake and in fact, has no earning from the profession.
No other point has been argued by counsels for the parties.
Conclusions:
10. Having heard arguments advanced by counsels for rival parties and having gone through the records, it is evident that both the courts below, after appraisal of evidence of both the parties, have given concurrent finding of fact that the need of the landlord is greater than the tenant and that the tenant has got another shop adjacent to shop in dispute where he may shift his business.
11. In Harbans Lal v. Jasmohan Saran 1986 ALJ 84, it has been held that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be Issued only if the order of the Inferior court suffers from the error of jurisdiction or from a breach of the principles of natural justice or is vitiated by a manifest or apparent error of law. There is no sanction enabling the High Court to reappraise the evidence without sufficient reason in law and reach finding of fact contrary to those rendered by an inferior court. When High Court proceeds to do so, it acts plainly in excess of its powers.
12. In the instant case, counsel for the petitioner could not establish that the orders of the courts below suffer from the error of jurisdiction or from a breach of the principles of natural justice or vitiated by a manifest or apparent error of law. Thus, it would be inappropriate in the circumstances for High Court to reappraise the evidence without sufficient reason in law and reach finding of fact contrary to those rendered by the courts below.
13. In Lachmi Singh v. State of U.P. 1981 ALJ 1068, it has been held that High Court would not be justified in interfering with the finding of fact reached by appellate court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Relying upon a decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bhabutmal Rai Chand Oswal v. Laxmibai , it was held that since this jurisdiction was limited only to seeing that the courts below function within the limits of its authority and did not extend to correction of mere error. In the case in hand, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, which are neither perverse nor irrational. So, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.
14. In Jagdish Tiwari v. Smt. Asha Devi Mishra. 2005 All CJ 1250; 2005 (2) AWC 1029, it has been held that landlord's requirement cannot be refused only on ground that the tenant would be facing difficulty. Applying the same ratio in the present case, release application of the landlord cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the tenant would face difficulty.
15. In Ranjit Singh v. Ravi Prakash 2004 All CJ 1818 : 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that High Court cannot exercise its power like appellate court nor can re-evaluate evidence for substituting its own view. In the instant case, a perusal of impugned judgments and decree clearly reveals that the courts below have arrived at conclusion that the need of the landlord is genuine after appraisal of documentary and oral evidence and this Court will not exercise its power like appellate court to re-evaluate evidence for substituting its own view.
16. In Ram Das v. Davinder 2004 All CJ 1819, it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that continued judicial possession cannot save the tenant from the landlord's plea that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building. In the instant case, plea of the petitioner that he has been carrying on business from the disputed shop for the last about 60 years will not save him from the landlord's plea that he ceased to occupy the shop.
17. No other point was argued.
18. No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and decree could be pointed out by counsel for the petitioner. The finding being based on evidence, requires no interference in the writ jurisdiction.
19. Hon'ble the Apex Court in E. Parasuraman (deceased by L.Rs.) v. Doraiswamy AIR 2005 SC 376 : 2006 (8) SCC 658. has held that findings of facts recorded by the subordinate courts should not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction unless and until it is established that they are illegal and perverse.
20. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Tenant-petitioner will handover peaceful possession of the disputed shop to the respondent-landlord within a month from today and make payment of arrears of rent, if any, within two months from today. In case the disputed shop is not vacated and payment of arrears of rent is not made within the aforesaid stipulated period, he will be evicted by Police force and arrears of rent will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. No order as to costs.