K.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Kanpur dated September 9, 1975 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute is with regard to a shop situated in Kanpur. This shop was in the tenancy of one Ahmad Hasan. An application under Section 21 of the Act was filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for release of the said shop on the ground that the same was required by them for their use and occupation. After written statement was filed by Ahmad Hasan contesting the application, he died. Thereafter an application was filed by one Mohd. Ayub for being impleaded in place of Ahmad Hasan on the ground that he was the heir and legal representative of the deceased. Another application was filed on March 25. 1974 by Abdul Hameed, the petitioner, for being substituted in place of the deceased Ahmad Hasan on the ground that he was in fact the heir of the deceased.
(2.) BEFORE this application was decided Abdul Hameed, the petitioner, filed another application on July 24, 1974 for withdrawal of his earlier application dated March 25, 1974. He thereafter filed an application on September 30, 1974 admitting the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for the release of the shop in their favour. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on October 17, 1974 and directed for the release of the shop. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge on the ground that he had neither filed any application on July 24, 1974 nor on September 30, 1974 withdrawing his claim for being substituted as an heir in place of the deceased Ahmad Hasan and admitting that the need of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was bona fide. The learned District Judge did not find any substance in these grounds and dismissed the appeal. He has now filed the present writ petition in this court. Sri S. N. Verma, counsel for the petitioner, urged that the learned District Judge, committed an error of law in recording an erroneous finding that the applications dated July 24, 1974 and September 30, 1974 had in fact been filed by the petitioner. He urged that the probabilities and the circumstances of the above case would show that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 managed to get these applications filed to get the rightful claim of the petitioner defeated. The submission made cannot be accepted in the present proceedings inasmuch as the District Judge has recorded the finding against the petitioner on examination of the evidence. The appellate court found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner could not establish that any fraud was exercised on him in getting these two applications filed in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. The finding of the learned District Judge on the aforesaid question is one of fact and it is not possible to interfere with the same in the present proceedings, even if it is erroneous. It is indisputable that an error of fact howsoever erroneous cannot be corrected in writ proceedings. High Court does not review or reweigh evidence nor does it substitute its own views for those of the inferior court. Hence the first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.
(3.) THE second argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel was that Sri C.B. Singh, who decided the application under S. 21 of the Act as the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the application as he was not the Prescribed Authority appointed for the area in which the shop in question was situated. On this basis the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the order of the Prescribed Authority was without jurisdiction the entire proceedings are illegal and both the judgments given against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to refer to the definition of the words 'Prescribed Authority' as defined in the original Act and that which has now been submitted after amendment. The definition given in the original Act was as under: - " 'Prescribed authority' means a Magistrate of the first class having experience as such of not less than three years, authorised by the District Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the prescribed authority under this Act, and different Magistrate may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, and the District Magistrate may recall any case from any such Magistrate and may either dispose of it himself or transfer it for disposal to any other such Magistrate." ;