Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioner -landlord by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 25th September, 1984, passed by the Appellate Authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition, whereby the appellate authority has allowed the appeal filed by the tenant -respondent and set aside the order dated 8th December, 1983 of the prescribed authority by which the application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, filed by the landlord -petitioner was allowed by the prescribed authority.
(2.) IN short, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner -landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, herein -after referred to as the 'Act', before the prescribed authority for the release of the accommodation in question, which is under the tenancy of the tenant. The prescribed authority on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before it, vide its order, dated 8th December, 1983, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -'5' to the writ petition, arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and also comparison of the hardship, the title is in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority therefore allowed the application of the landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant -respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority as contemplated under section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority vide its order dated 25th September, 1984, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -'6' to the writ petition, allowed the appeal of the tenant -respondent, set aside the order of the prescribed authority and rejected the application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the Act filed by the landlord. The appellate authority has dealt with all the materials on record and while dealing with the matter has observed that there is no document on record to prove that the need of the landlord is bona fide or genuine. Therefore, the appellate authority reversed the order of the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide need of the landlord and arrived at the finding that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship also the appellate authority arrived at the finding that on comparison, the title is in favour of the landlord. Thus, the appellate authority found that need of the tenant is more pressing than the landlord, therefore allowed the appeal filed by the tenant -respondent and reversed the order of the prescribed authority. Learned Counsel for the tenant -landlord tried to assail the findings of the appellate authority on the ground that the appellate authority has not given any reason before reversing the findings of the prescribed authority. I found from the perusal of the order of the appellate authority that this submission has no force therefore deserves to be rejected, the appellate authority has given cogent reasons before reversing the findings of the prescribed authority.
(3.) IT is settled principle of the law that this Court will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the appellate authority in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held the Apex Court in a case Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others : 2003 (52) ALR 707(SC) : 2003 (9) AIC 1 (SC). The relevant paragraph 38 sub -para (8) of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: 38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusion in a nut shell, ever, at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder: (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.;