Decided on September 09,2013

RAM PRASAD Appellant


Brahma Singh Verma, J. - (1.) SINCE the judgment and orders challenged in these writ petitions is same, therefore for sake of convenience, both these writ petitions are being disposed of this by common judgment and order.
(2.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the landlord/petitioner for quashing the part of judgment and order dated 28.5.1998 passed by Prescribed Authority partially rejecting the release application as well as the judgment and order dated 14.6.2001 passed by Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. -Ist, Dehradun. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that petitioner being owner and landlord of two shops in dispute filed release application u/s. 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for eviction of the respondent/tenant from one shop on the ground that his family consists of petitioner himself, his wife, two sons and one unmarried daughter and income which he is getting from business is so meagre that he is unable to meet out the day to day requirement of his family. Therefore, he has bona fide requirement of that shop occupied by the respondent for expansion of his business of oil expeller. During the pendency of proceedings of the release application, son of the petitioner namely Dhiraj who during the relevant point of time was doing his Engineering 1st year dropped his studies and got engaged with his father but he was not willing to continue business with his father i.e. the petitioner/applicant and wanted to run his own independent business. This requirement of the petitioner's son led the petitioner to amend the release application and subsequently a prayer for release of second shop was also incorporated in the application. The release application was contested by the respondent/tenant by filing written statement. Both the parties led 'documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexure in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidence led by them, learned Prescribed Authority, vide judgment and order dated 28.5.1998, partly allowed the release application for one shop for need of petitioner's son. Feeling aggrieved by the partial release of one shop only, the petitioner/landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The respondent/tenant aggrieved by the partial release in favour of the petitioner/landlord also preferred an appeal.
(3.) BY the impugned judgments and orders dated 14.6.2001, Additional District Judge set aside the order of the trial court thereby rejecting the release application in toto. Further aggrieved, the petitioner/landlord has filed the present writ petition before this Court. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re -appreciate or re -evaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis -reading of evidence by the courts below.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.