R.P Singh, J.:— The present writ petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the application for the release of the accommodation in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P Act XIII of 1972.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute situate on Gokhlay Marg, Kotdwar on a rent of Rs. 55 per month of which the respondent No. 3 Ved Prakash is the landlord. The respondent No. 3 moved an application for the release of she shop in dispute on the ground that his eldest son Ashwini Kumar has completed the course of electronic and wants to start electronic business for which purpose the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine so that the respondent No. 3 may set up his unemployed son Ashwini Kumar in business and that the petitioner could shift his furniture business in his shop at Lakri Parao where he is doing business of Timber and hence greater hardship would be caused to the landlord-respondent No. 3 in case the accommodation is not released in his favour.
3. The application moved by the landlord was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the landlord has in his possession one shop in the disputed building, in which he can set up his son in business and that the need of the landlord for the disputed shop is not bona fide and genuine. The Prescribed Authority on going through the evidence held that the need of the landlord for the disputed shop for setting up his unemployed son in business was bona fide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the shop in dispute is not released in his favour and on these findings allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went upon appeal before the District Judge, respondent No. 1 who also dismissed the appeal upholding the findings on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship. It is these orders which are in challenge in the present writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the need of the landlord for the disputed shop is not bona fide and genuine as landlord has other shops in his occupation in vacant state where he can set up his son Ashwini Kumar in business. A perusal of the order passed by the District Judge reveals that the District Judge in order to appreciate this point whether the shops were available to the landlord-respondent No. 3 for setting up his unemployed son in business, himself also made an inspection at the request of the petitioner and found that some portion in the centre of the building was shown to him which was lying vacant. However, this accommodation was found to be very dark and damp and situate at a distance of more than 30 feet from the road and the approach to this accommodation was through galleries, doors and other's shops and hence held that this accommodation was not suitable for opening an electronic shop. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a hall also which could be used for opening a business by the son of the landlord.
5. However, a perusal of the order passed by the District Judge shows that this hall was fit for only a godown and its approach also is from one of the shops in from and through a long gallery and hence could not be used for opening an electronic shop. Another accommodation in which the petitioner suggested the opening of the business by the landlord's son, was being used by the landlord himself for doing business and this shop was only 9′ × 9′ and out of it a portion of the shop 5′ × 6′ was in the shape of a raised platform leaving a gallery of 4′ on the other side which space is being used for taking goods from godown which godown has admittedly been let out to Arran Trading Company. Hence, in the circumstances the learned Judge held that there was no accommodation available to Ashwini Kumar, the son of the landlord where he could start his electronic shop and since the son was sitting idle even after completing his course in electronic, the respondents 1 find 2 held that the need of the landlord, in the circumstances, the need of landlord for the disputed shop for setting up his unemployed son in business was bona fide and genuine.
6. On the question of hardship the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner would suffer greater hardship in case he is evicted from the disputed shop. A perusal of the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 shows that the petitioner has in his possession one shop in Lakri Parao within the municipal limits of Kotdwara where the petitioner is doing timber business. The petitioner is carrying on his furniture shop in the disputed accommodation and hence the respondents 1 and 2 held that it was possible for the petitioner to shift his furniture shop to his shop in Lakri Parao while on the other hand, there is no alternative accommodation available to the landlord for setting up his unemployed son in business and hence held that greater hardship would be caused if the disputed accommodation is not released in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3. The findings on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship have been arrived at by the respondents 1 and 2 after appraisal of evidence on record and it is not open to this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and then to reach a finding contrary to those rendered by the respondents 1 and 2. In Munni Lal v. Prescribed Authority, (1977) 3 SCC 336 : AIR 1978 SC 29 : 1981 ARC 470 (SC), the Supreme Court observed thus:—
“It is not for the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority”.
7. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court again in the case of Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 333 : AIR 1986 SC 302 : 1985 (2) ARC 550 (SC), where the Supreme Court observed Chat there is no sanction enabling the High Court to reappraise the evidence without sufficient reasons in law and to reach a finding of fact contrary to those rendered by the subordinate Court. In view of the same I see no illegality committed by the respondents 1 and 2 in allowing the application for the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent also invited my attention to the observations made by the learned District Judge in appeal indicating that the petitioner his been guilty of making interpolations in his affidavit filed before the Prescribed Authority to short that he was himself doing business in the disputed shop and contended that this shows that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court and hence is not entitled for any relief in this Court. However, without going into this point since I have already upheld the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 on merits and find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents 1 and 2 in holding that the need of the landlord for the disputed shop is bona fide and genuine and that the comparative hardship also lies on the side of the landlord-respondent No. 3, there are no merits in this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.
Comments