M.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the tenant petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 20 -12 -1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Meerut allowing the landlady respondent's application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the judgment dated 20 -7 -1987 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. I have heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Jain, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Smt. Rama Gupta, the landlady.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in one of the 9 shops situate in the ground floor of Ahata No. 195, Police Street, Meerut Cantt., on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The petitioner is carrying on his business of Bardana at the said shop. The landlady Smt. Rama Gupta moved an application dated 4th November, 1985 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the said shop in her favour for establishing her handicapped daughter Km. Sangeeta in a business of general merchandise. It was alleged by her that the said girl is handicapped and crippled because both of her legs are affected by polio and she cannot be married. According to the landlady the girl feels dejected in life and in order to create a confidence and providing her better living conditions it has been decided to settle her in business of general merchandise shop so that she may keep herself busy and make her living independently and may not be a source of burden on her parents. Therefore, the girl is sought to be established in general merchandise business which she could carry on by setting up a shop and by getting the help of he applicant i.e. the landlady and other members of her family who will assist her in bringing the goods from the market and provide every kind of help to her. It was, therefore, prayed that on this humanitarian reason the landlady needs the shop in question for establishing a general merchandise shop by the said daughter. It was also contended that the tenant can find the alternative accommodation elsewhere. The tenant petitioner contested the petition contending that the alleged need was false and fictitious and in fact there was no desire to establish any shop. It was alleged that the landlady and her husband are very affluent person having large properties and business and that the said girl Km. Sangeeta is studying in Class X and would study upto M.A. and then she would be married and that there was no question of her setting up any business. It was contended that the girl Km. Sangeeta is not affected with polio and it is utterly false to allege that she cannot be married. It was contended that he has a established business in the shop in suit which will be ruined if he is ordered to be evicted therefrom. The Courts below have concurrently held that the girl Km. Sangeeta is crippled and the landlady needs the shop for establishing her in business.
(3.) I am conscious of the fact that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court cannot normally appraise the evidence and re -examine the correctness of findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. This is all the more so when the findings are concurrent. But where it is shown that the Courts below have acted mechanically and have arrived on their findings without an objective assessment of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the High Court can certainly reappraise the evidence in order to do justice between the parties.;