JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 22.10.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Court No. 3), Meerut (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the judgment and order dated 31.8.2002, passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/Prescribed Authority. Meerut (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).
2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Mohalla Sarai Afganan, Kasba Sarthana, District Meerut, the details whereof have been given in the release application. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop".
3. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the landlord-respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the tenant-petitioner for the release of the disputed shop.
4. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said release application that as a result of partition of the property between the landlord-respondent and his brother Qadeer Ahmad, the disputed shop fell to the share of landlord respondent ; and that the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed shop ; and that the landlord-respondent used to do the work of Rajgiri ; and that the sons of the landlord-respondent were unemployed ; and that there was no shop available to the landlord-respondent for settling his sons in business. A copy of the release application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
5. The tenant-petitioner contested the release application and filed a written statement, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It was inter alia, alleged by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent had earlier filed release application which was dismissed, and as such, the present release application was barred by the principles of res judicata.
6. Evidence was led by both the sides in the said release case :
After considering the entire material on record, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/ Prescribed Authority, Meerut, by his Judgment and order dated 31.8.2002, inter alia, allowed the said release application filed by the landlord-respondent in respect of the disputed shop and also awarded Rs. 2,400 as compensation to the tenant-petitioner. In the said judgment and order dated 31.8.2002, it was, inter alia, held that it was established on record that the disputed shop fell to the share of the landlord-respondent as a result of partition between the landlord-respondent and his brother. It was. inter alia, further held that the present release application was filed on 7.12.2000 after the expiry of more than one year from 7.10.1999 on which date the appellate authority passed the order in the earlier release application. It was, inter alia, further held that the grounds taken in the present release application were different from those taken in the earlier release application, therefore, the decision on the earlier release application would not operate as res judicata.
7. It was, infer alia, further held in the said judgment and order dated 31.8.2002, that the need of the landlord-respondent for the release of the disputed shop was bona fide. It was, inter alia, further held that the landlord-respondent would suffer greater hardship in case of rejection of the release application.
8. Against the said judgment and order dated 31.8.2002, the tenant-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as P. A. Appeal No. 229 of 2002.
9. The learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut (Appellate Authority) by the judgment and order dated 22.10.2002, dismissed the said appeal, and confirmed the said judgment and order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority. It was, inter alia, held in the said judgment and order dated 22.10.2002, that the tenant-petitioner failed to show that the partition which was stated to have taken place between the respondent-landlord and his brother was not genuine. It was, inter alia, further held that the need of the landlord-respondent was bona fide. It was, inter alia, further held that in case the release application was allowed, the tenant-petitioner would suffer comparatively less hardship, while the respondent-landlord would suffer greater hardship in case of rejection of the release application.
10. I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mithal who has put in appearance on behalf of the landlord-respondent.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the writ petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The authorities below have recorded findings on the questions of bona Jide need and comparative hardships on a detailed consideration of the entire material on record. The findings on the questions of bona Jide need and comparative hardships are findings of fact. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the said findings recorded by the authorities below. No interference is called for with the said findings recorded by the authorities below.
12. Reference in this regard may be made to certain Judicial decisions.
13. In India Pipe Fittings Co, v. Fakruddin M.A. Baker and another, AIR 1978 SC 45, it was laid down by the Apex Court that the conclusions of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The findings on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord recorded by the courts below by appreciating the entire evidence cannot be interfered with by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. In Munni Lal and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 29, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that the finding on the question of comparative hardship of the landlord was finding of fact, and the same cannot be interfered with by the High, Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. In Ashok Kumar and others v. Sita Ram, 2001 (3) AWC 1997 (SC) : 2001 (2) ARC 1 ; 2001 (43) ALR 783 (SC), the Apex Court held as follows (Paras 9 and 15 of the said ARC) :
"9. The position is too well-settled to admit of any controversy that the finding of fact recorded by the final Court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record.
15. The question that remains to be considered is whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Appellate Authority did not suffer from any serious illegality, nor can it be said to have taken a view of the matter, which no reasonable person was likely to take. In that view of the matter there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In a matter like the present case where orders passed by the Statutory Authority vested with power to act quasi-judicially is challenged before the High Court, the role of the Court is supervisory and corrective. In exercise of such jurisdiction the High Court is not expected to interfere with the final order passed by the Statutory Authority unless the order suffers from manifest error and if it is allowed to stand it would amount to perpetuation of grave injustice. The Court should bear in mind that it is not acting as yet another Appellate Court in the matter. We are constrained to observe that in the present case the High Court has failed to keep the salutary principles in mind while deciding the case."
16. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has tried to assail the finding on the question of partition by placing reliance on the chitha relating to house tax. The authorities below have considered the entire evidence on record and recorded categorical findings of fact on the question of partition between the landlord-respondent and his brother. The documents relating to chitha house tax, Nagarpalika were also considered. A reference in this regard may be made to paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The said documents along with other evidence have been considered by the authorities below. No interference is called for with the said findings of fact. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the judgment and orders of the authorities below.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to the provisions of Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules framed under the Act. It is submitted that the Prescribed Authority in its judgment and order, noticed the long period of occupation of the tenant-petitioner in the disputed shop but it did not consider the question in accordance with Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment and orders of the authorities below shows that the various relevant factors for deciding the question of comparative hardship have been taken into account, and then findings on the question of comparative hardship have been recorded. No interference is called for with the said findings of fact recorded by the authorities below,
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that some time be granted for vacating the disputed shop.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on this question.
21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant-petitioner is granted time upto 30th April, 2003, for vacating the disputed shop subject to the tenant-petitioner giving an undertaking on his personal affidavit before the Prescribed Authority, Meerut, within eight weeks from today incorporating the following conditions :
(1) The tenant-petitioner will vacate the disputed shop on or before 30th April. 2003 and will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the same to the landlord-respondent.
(2) The tenant-petitioner will continue to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 100 till the date of vacating the disputed shop.
22. In case of failure on the part of the tenant-petitioner to give the aforesaid requisite undertaking within the aforesaid period or to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, incorporated in the undertaking, this order granting time upto 30th April, 2003, will stand automatically vacated and it will become open to the landlord-respondent to execute the release order forthwith.