PRABHA PATHAK Vs. JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenants, who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioners are tenants of the accommodation in question of which the respondents are the landlords. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act has been filed by the landlords on the ground that the accommodation in question may be released in their favour as they bona fide require the same. The petitioner-tenants filed written statement contesting the claim of the landlords. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record the prescribed authority arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and further the tilt of comparative hardship is also in favour of landlord. The prescribed authority, therefore, by the order dated 28th September, 2004, allowed the application filed by the landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and directed release of accommodation in favour of the landlords. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority which has been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated 16th December, 2004.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners tries to assail the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority regarding bona fide need of the landlords but inview of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) : 2004 (2) SCCD 890 : 2004 (1) ARC 613. I am afraid it is not open for this Court to reappraise the evidence on record and findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority unless the petitioners demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority suffer from manifest error of law. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh (supra) has considered the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., AIR2003 SC 3044 , 2003 (5)ALD36 (SC), 2003 (5)ALT19 (SC), 2003 (4)CTC48 , (2004)1 GLR320 , [2003 (4)JCR174 (SC)], 2003 (3)KLT490 (SC), (2003)3 MLJ60 (SC), RLW2003 (4)SC 523 , 2003 (6 )SCALE133 , (2003)6 SCC675 . In para 38 of the aforesaid judgment of Surya Devi Rai the Apex Court laid down the law as under :