RISHI KUMAR JALAN Vs. LAKSHMENDRA PAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. By means of present writ petition under Article 18 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenant has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the UP. R Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short The Act') dated 4th January, 2006, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order dated 24th November, 2003 by which the prescribed authority has allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord, under Section 21 of the Act, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '12' and '7' respectively, to the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accomnodation in dispute, which is a shop, in favour of the landlord, as he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for the purposes of the chamber of landlord who is a practising lawyer. It was also asserted by the landlord that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business and that the tenant has sublet to some third person, who is carrying, on fair price shop business in the shop in dispute. It is further asserted by the landlord that the landlord, who is prac tising advocate, has recently been ap pointed as 'notary Public' and requires the aforesaid shop after release for his chamber, wherein he can use the aforesaid room for consultation with his clients, as at present the landlord do not have any independent consultation chamber and that the landlord is using the room in his possession, which in fact a bed-room by putting a curtain and utilising half portion of the bedroom as consultation chamber. That due to the paucity of space and appointment of the landlord as 'notary Public', he re quires the additional accommodation and for that purposes the shop in dis pute is requireri for the bona fide need and the same may be released in his favour. As far as the comparative hardship is concerned, the assertion of the landlord in the release application is that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business in the shop in dispute and he is un- necessarily occupying the shop because the tenant demands premium for vacating the same.

(3.) BEFORE this Court, learned Coun sel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenant tried to assail the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority on the question of bona fide requirement as well as the comparative hardship. I have gone through the or ders impugned in the present writ peti tion passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, but nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and af firmed by the appellate authority in any way suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 682, Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an ap pellate Court by re- appreciating o' re-evaluating the evidence while exercis ing supervisory jurisdiction under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.