RAM PRASAD Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the judgment and orders challenged in these writ petitions is same, therefore for sake of convenience, both these writ petitions are being disposed of this by common judgment and order.

(2.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the landlord/petitioner for quashing the part of judgment and order dated 28.5.1998 passed by Prescribed Authority partially rejecting the release application as well as the judgment and order dated 14.6.2001 passed by Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. -Ist, Dehradun.

(3.) BY the impugned judgments and orders dated 14.6.2001, Additional District Judge set aside the order of the trial court thereby rejecting the release application in toto. Further aggrieved, the petitioner/landlord has filed the present writ petition before this Court. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re -appreciate or re -evaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis -reading of evidence by the courts below.