LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-265

CHHEDI LAL GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

Decided On March 03, 2014
CHHEDI LAL GUPTA Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, and perused the record. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.1.1998 whereby Prescribed Authority has allowed respondents-landlords' application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") in respect to shop in question and the appellate order dated 1.5.2003 passed by District Judge, Kushinagar, at Padrauna dismissing petitioner's Rent Appeal No. 14 of 2002. It is contended that the objection raised by petitioner opposing application of petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 in respect to genuinity of personal need has not been looked into. However, from the record, it appears that both the Courts below have found that petitioner owns another residential house in the same Town Area and in that view of the matter, they have not allowed petitioner to object Release Application filed by landlords under Section 21(1)(a), in view of Explanation (i) thereof which reads as under:

(2.) This factum that petitioner owns another residential accommodation in the same Town Area is not disputed. That being so, no objection so far as petitioner is concerned with respect to application of landlords was liable to be entertained, since it was barred by Statute. Therefore Courts below have rightly considered landlords' application and believing the same to be true, have passed the impugned order. Findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.

(3.) In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.