S.N.Saxena - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against the order of learned District Judge, Jhansi, who dismissed his appeal against the order dated 3-5-1991 of the learned Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge, Jhansi) whereby he had allowed landlord's release application and had directed the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in dispute within one month of the order. Opposite party no. 3, Kishan Lal Gar, who is landlord of the said accommodation, filed caveat and both the parties were heard on the point of admission. After going carefully through the judgments of the learned Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge, Jhansi, I found no error manifest on the face of the record for justifying interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It need not be mentioned that the said writ jurisdiction of this Court is of supervisory nature and not that of a Court of second appeal. In view of the concurrent findings of fact and law returned by the learned Prescribed Authority and the appellate court, it does not appear proper to admit this petition particularly because neither of the two courts committed any mistake apparent on the face of the record.
(2.) IT may be mentioned that it is a case in which the tenant i. e. the petitioner had acquired three houses numbered as 12/17A, 12/53A and 423/1A in Civil Lines, Jhansi, vide para 6 of the judgment of the court of appeal. Before this Court it was contended for the petitioner that the petitioner had acquired only two houses and the observation that he had acquired three houses was not correct. It would not make any difference if it is persumed that the number of the houses acquired was two only because in that case also the Explanation to fourth proviso to section 21 (1) (a) of Act 13 of 1972 shall come into play due to which the petitioner could not legally and validly file objection against an application for release and it would be a matter between the Court and the landlord only. This aspect of the case had been considered at length by the learned District Judge, Jhansi and I find no sufficient reasons to take a different view of the same. After going carefully through the aforesaid Explanation, I find that the petitioner had got no locus standi before the Court of appeal due to which his contentions were not entitled for consideration and the evidence adduced by him also therefore, could not be legally looked into by the court below. The lower court had discussed the relevant case law on the point which was cited before me also The case law had been rightly applied to the facts of this case by the lower court and I am, in view of the same, of the view that the petitioner was barred from raising dejection to landlord's application for release and also that in a case of like nature, the tenant goes out of picture and that he was not entitled to contest She release application. It would be an anomalous situation if a tenant of the aforesaid class who was not even in the picture is permitted by law to challenge the findings of the court below by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which therefore was liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. It was vehemently argued for tie petitioner that even if he was out of picture, it was the duty of the court below to decide as to whether the need of the landlord for release of the accommodation was genuine and bonafide, that thi3 aspect was not considered by the court below and that the writ petition, therefore, was maintainable The contentions, however, did not appear to carry force. A perusal of lower court's judgment at page 5 showed that the lower court had agreed with the finding of the learned Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine and he did not find any reason to differ from him. It cannot therefore, be said that the question of genuine and bonafide need of the petitioner was not considered and decided by the learned Prescribed Authority and the lower court. Again it may be observed that if the tenant was out of picture till the appellate stage, he could not come to this court and contend that the lower court had not decided the question of bonafide and genuine need of the petitioner.
(3.) IN view of the above discission, the writ petition is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission, Petition dismissed.;