RAM CHARAN SHARMA Vs. SHYAM NARAYAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 57 of 2007 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and handover its possession to landlord and the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by Appellate/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 34 of 2011 dismissing appeal. The respondent-landlord has preferred the Suit No. 57 of 2007 under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972. Despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to adduce any evidence. On 23rd of December, 2009, matter was fixed for adducing evidence in defence but petitioner failed to do so, hence on 28.1.2010, trial court closed evidence of defence. Thereafter, petitioner filed a recall application which was also rejected on 04.08.2010. Against the said order, petitioner filed a Revision No. 121 of 2010 which was accepted on 22.9.2010 giving opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. Despite that neither the petitioner adduce any evidence nor paid the cost, hence revisional order rendered inoperative as held by trial court vide order dated 16.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 63827 of 2010 which was dismissed on 28th of October, 2010 and in this way the petitioner's right to adduce evidence stood closed.

(2.) The Courts below have found that application of landlord is genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the same was allowed vide order dated 05.02.201. The appeal against the order dated 5.2.2011 has been dismissed by appellate court vide order dated 28.11.2012. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. The concurrent finding recorded by courts below cannot be interfered lightly in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as if this Court is sitting in appeal. The scope of judicial review is very narrow. This writ petition though titled as purported to have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution but in fact it is under Article 227. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence but in absence of anything to show that the findings are perverse or such glaring error has been committed as would cause grave injustice, the court would not disturb the findings of courts like an appellant court. Dismissed.