JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties No. 3 and 4.
2. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 29.7.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and the judgment and order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure-9 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 not to enforce the illegal impugned orders.
3. Since the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have appeared by filing a caveat and both the parties agreed to argue the writ petition on merit at the time of admission, I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The petitioner is the tenant in the ground floor of House No. 133/335, Aminabad Road, Naka Hindola, Lucknow and the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are the landlords. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 before the prescribed authority showing their bona fide requirement of the additional accommodation. Besides the bona fide need of the additional requirement, the opposite parties alleged that the petitioner has constructed a house which is described as House No. 11. Alokpuri Ravindrapalli, Lucknow. The petitioner opposed this application on the ground that the applicant No. 2 is not the landlord and Rajesh Gupta for whose need the additional accommodation is being sought to be released, is the son of the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner denied the bona fide need by giving the detail of the accommodation. The petitioner also pleaded that he has strained relation with her son and he is a Government servant. He has not constructed the house. His son has been posted at different places.
5. The prescribed authority compared the comparative need of the party and recorded a finding that Manikant Chaturvedi, the son of the petitioner has constructed a house at Alokpuri Ravindra Palli and, therefore, the objection of the petitioner cannot be entertained. This writ petition has been filed to quash the aforesaid orders. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal, he filed additional written statement and five documents. The appellate court allowed the additional written statement and the documents filed by the petitioner on payment of heavy costs but inspite of that pleas taken in the additional written statement and the documents were not considered by the appellate Judge.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is a finding of facts of the two courts below that Mantkant Chaturvedi, the son of the petitioner has constructed a house in Alokpuri Ravindrapalli. There is also a finding of fact that the petitioner is residing in his house constructed by his son. Explanation attached to Section 21 (1) is as follows :
"Explanation.--In the case of a residential building :
(i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained.
Note.--For the purpose of this clause a person shall be deemed to have otherwise acquired a building, if he is occupying a public building for residential purposes as a tenant, allottee or licensee."
7. In view of the findings of fact based on evidence recorded by two courts below, the objection of the petitioner cannot be entertained as provided in the Explanation attached to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Since the objection of the petitioner cannot be entertained in view of the Explanation cited above, it is immaterial if, the appellate Judge has not referred the additional written statement and the documents in the impugned judgment because under the law the objection of the defendant-petitioner against the release of the disputed accommodation could not be entertained.
8. A writ of 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--
(iv) without jurisdiction--by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none ; or
(v) in excess of its jurisdiction--by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction ; or
(vi) acting in flagrant disregard to 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.
9. Either in the writ of certiorari or in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless this Court is satisfied that the error is manifest or 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.
10. The petitioner is 85 years of age. His son has constructed a house. Under the law, his objection cannot be entertained against the release application of the landlord. The judgment of the two courts below are based on the provisions of law under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. It is not a case in which the judgment has been written without referring relevant law. It is not a case of grave injustice because the defendant-petitioner has the opportunity to comfortably shift in the house of his son who resides outside in connection with his service.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1118. The facts of this case are quite different to the facts of the case under judgment. It was a case under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given advantage of this decision.
12. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.