JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent is not present in spite of the notice served.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the landlord-petitioner challenges the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, In short the 'Act', whereby the appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner against the order of prescribed authority rejecting his application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act for the release of the shop in dispute, was dismissed.
3. The landlord-petitioner has taken up the ground for the release of the shop in question that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. The landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Authority has considered the matter and has found that no doubt the building in question is old, but there is no material on record which can demonstrate that the building requires demolition and reconstruction, therefore, the case set up under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act has been rejected by the prescribed authority, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. Coming to the case set up by the landlord-petitioner in his application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act, the prescribed authority has considered the need set up by the landlord and arrived at the conclusion that the need alleged to have been set up, is not bonafide and since the need set up by the landlord is not bonafide, it is not necessary to go into the second aspect of the matter i.e. comparison of the hardship and thus the case under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act has also been rejected by the prescribed authority. The findings have been affirmed by the appellate authority by holding that the appellate authority does not find any reason to defer with the finding arrived at by the prescribed authority, as both clauses i.e. 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord tried to assail the finding recorded by the prescribed authority, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority, but has failed to demonstrate that the errors are such so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India within the law laid down in the case reported in, (2003) 6 SCC 675: 2003 SCFBRC 512, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., Paragraph 38, Sub-para (8) of which is reproduced below:-
"38, Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusion in a nut shell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:
(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."
5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.