Decided on November 25,2013

Bimla Kapoor And Anr Appellant
Vipin Kumar Bedi Respondents


- (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 14.10.2013 passed by III Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Rent Control Appeal No.132 of 2006 Bimla Kapoor and another vs. Vipin Kumar Bedi as well as the judgment and order dated 30.9.2006 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Ist Additional Civil Judge, Haridwar in P.A. Case No.12 of 2004.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord moved a release application against the tenants/petitioners under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) before the Prescribed Authority for release of the shop in dispute stating that he wants to settle his elder son in business, who is unemployed. The release application was resisted by the tenants/petitioners by filing written statement. In the written statement, the tenants/petitioners alleged that the need of the landlord/respondent is not bonafide. Both the parties led documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexures 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 30.9.2006, allowed the release application of the landlord/respondent. Being aggrieved, the tenants/petitioners filed a rent control appeal in the court of District Judge Hardwar being R.C.A. No.132/2006. Learned District Judge, vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2007, allowed the appeal of the tenants/petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Judge, the landlord/respondent preferred a writ petition no.2394 of 2007 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 20.6.2013, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh after hearing both the parties on its merit. After the remand of the case, learned District Judge again heard the parties and perused the record and vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2013 dismissed the appeal of the tenants/petitioners and allowed the release application of the landlord/respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and orders of the learned Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge, the tenants/petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed before this Court. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 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 concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003 6 SCC 675] that "Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.";

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