SACHHIDA NAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the parties and also perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 1-11-1989 passed by the District Judge in exercise of power under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act allowing the revision filed by the contesting Respondent No. 2 and dismiss ing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Respondent No. 1 was exercising powers under Section 18 of the Act which were limited. The revisional authority could in terfere with the judgment of the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer if there was any question of jurisdiction was involved. He had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact nor he had the jurisdiction to re- appraise the evidence. It was also urged that the findings recorded by the revisional authority are not based on any evidence on the record, they are apparent ly erroneous and illegal. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 sup ported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the revisional authority was right in holding that Smt. Bishuni Devi was the tenant in her own right who had died issuless, therefore, the shop in dispute was legally vacant and the revision was thus rightly allowed. The learned Counsel appear ing for the Respondent No. 2 also referred to and relied upon certain documents which according to him were filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.