Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.P. Verma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sudama Ji Shandilya, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioner's application for release of accommodation in question in favour of petitioner landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and the order dated 29.11.2003 passed by Appellate Court rejecting his appeal. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact holding that petitioner failed to prove bona fide of personal need in respect to shop in question. It is noticed by the Courts below that there was a shop in vacant position in possession of landlord but during the pendency of present Release Application, the same was let out to one Salma wife of Yusuf Khan on 10.5.1998 on monthly rent of 350/-. This fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in his Release Application and when the tenant pointed out it, landlord initially disputed the very correctness of letting out of shop to Salma wife of Yusuf Khan but when Trial Court proceed to investigate into the matter in detail, later on landlord admitted that he let out the said shop to Salma, wife of Yusuf Khan but then he contended that said shop was let out not in 1998 but in 1995 but this fact he could not prove and both the Courts below have disbelieved his stand that the shop was let out in 1995 and have recorded a finding that it was let out on 10.5.1998. This finding recorded by Courts below have not been shown perverse or contrary to record warranting interference. Once the very need of landlord set out in Release Application has not been proved to be bona fide and genuine, rejection of Release Application by Courts below cannot be faulted legally, factually or otherwise.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in para 26 of its order, Appellate Court has observed that even an affidavit was not filed by landlord regarding his stand in relation to the time period when the shop was let out to Salma though as a matter of fact the affidavit was filed but he could not dispute that there were different affidavits filed by him initially that no such shop was let out to Salma but thereafter he admitted this fact but then disputed the period. Moreover, he also did not file any document to show that shop was let out to Salma in 1995 and she has paid rent from that date onwards. Considering all the facts and circumstances and evidences on record, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.;