MANILAL Vs. DASARATHI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an action by the landlord for the quashing of the appellate judgment passed in House Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 1982 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, by judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE premises in question belonging to the petitioner is located in Ward No. VIII of Angul town and is being utilised for holding a shop. The premises had been let out to the opposite parties 1 and 2, who are brothers, in 1967 on a monthly rental of Rs. 115/-. Later the rent was increased to Rs. 175/- per month. The tenants, however, committed default in payment of rent and were habitual defaulters. Having regard to the requirements of the petitioner, they had undertaken to quit the premises in January, 1977. Besides, the petitioner required the premises for his son to run a shop there. When opposite parties did not honour their promise, application was filed for their eviction on two grounds, namely, (a) wilful default and (b) requirement bonafide for personal use.

(3.) MR . Deepak Misra, learned counsel appearing for the landlord, has strenuously urged that the decision of the appellate Court is perverse having been rendered ignoring relevant materials and the assessment of the evidence not having been made from the correct legal perspective. He has made copious references to the evidence of witnesses examined by the parties in course of argument and in the note submitted by him. He has tried to show that the premises which were available to the petitioner were smaller in size whereas the premises in dispute, as deposed to by the witnesses, was more suitable and better suited having regard to the location and the size. He has vehemently criticised the reasoning of the Appellate Authority in discarding the bonafides of personal use. He has argued that the criticism of the appellate Court for failure of the petitioner's son to obtain a licence for starting a drug shop or to engage a Pharmacist etc. were uncalled for as it was premature to seek a licence or engage a Pharmacist etc. were uncalled for as it was premature to seek a licence or engage a Pharmacist when possession of the premises was still to be recovered. There was evidence that the medicine shop at Bagedia was not running well and was to be shifted to Angul. He has also contended that the appellate Court has leaned in favour of the tenants unjustifiably. Mr. J. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, on the other hand, has repelled the submissions urging that this Court while exercising jurisdiction on certiorari, does not function as an appellate Court. Sufficiency or adequacy of evidence are not valid grounds for review of judgment of subordinate authority. Nothing has been placed before the Court to show that the view that has been reached by the appellate Court was not available to be reached on the evidence. He too has referred us to some evidence relied upon by the appellate Court. He has tried to show that the conclusion of the Controller, the original authority, was unsustainable and has been rightly vacated by the Appellate Authority.