- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Both these petitions have been filed by tenants and they arise out of a common judgment of the Appel late Authority, whereby appeals filed by both the petitioners were dismissed and the order of the Prescribed Authority al lowing the release application of the landlord-respondent No. 3 was affirmed against both the petitioners.
(2.) THE claim for disputed rented ac commodation was made by the landlord on the basis that he is residing in a rented house and his eviction was threatened and he purchased the property in question by a registered sale-deed, dated 8-9-1988 for his personal requirement. Notices as con templated under the first proviso were served upon the tenants. Undisputedly after the expiry of more than three-years, the release applications were moved. THE claim was contested by both the tenants on several grounds. Some of the main defen ces being that the landlord has his an cestral house which has been concealed; that there was no threat of his eviction from the rented house; that the landlord has already come in occupation of a por tion of the house in question which was in the tenancy of Munna Lai; and that the tenants would suffer greater hardship other than that of the landlord. THE Prescribed Authority examined the evidence and answered both. the relevant questions i. e. bonafide need and compara tive hardship in favour of the landlord. THE Appellate Authority also thoroughlv ex amined the evidence and affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority. It is well established law that this Court while hearing a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not Act as a Court of appeal. In rent con trol matters the power of this Court is only supervisory and of judicial review. No authority is needed for the proposition that a judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the decision but only with the manner in which the decision was made. Minute errors here and there com mitted by the Court below in recording the concurrent findings of fact would not be sufficient to vitiate the orders. A menifest error has to be shown in order to seek intervention of this Court. The argument of the learned Coun sel for the petitioners that in the release application the landlord concealed that he has an ancestral house and, therefore, his need for the accommodation in question should have been viewed with suspicion, cannot be accepted as it was clearly indi cated in the evidence brought on record that the ancestral house No. 104/261, Sisamau, Kanpur was owned by Inder Narain Awasthi the grand-father of the landlord and after his death the father of the petitioner and his two uncles are hold ing the said property as co-sharers and it has also been brought on record and has been found as a fact by the Appellate Authority that the landlord's father resides with his step-mother and children in the said house and landlord's relations with them were not cordial and he always lived separate from his father and he was forced to take a house on rent. No space for his personal residence was therefore, available to the landlord in the ancestral house because of the same being occupied by landlord's father, step-mother, her children and his two uncles with their families. No reliable evidence was brought on record to disprove the above assertion of the landlord. The circumstance that the landlord was himself residing in a rented house supported his version that since it was not possible for him to live with his step-mother, he had to take another house on rent. So far as availability of space which has come in occupation of the landlord after being vacate by another tenant Munna Lai is concerned, a clear finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the said accommodation comprised of only one room and a Verandah, whereas the need of the landlord for four rooms was found to be necessary, As per the landlord's case the said accommodation was inhabitable but assuming this to be not correct, still it could not be said-that the need of the landlord for the accommoda tion in question stood satisfied with that space only.
(3.) AS regards the question of com parison of hardship, the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner made no sincere and earnest efforts to obtain any other accommoda tion, though the instant release applica tion remained pending since January,1992. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an affidavit of the tenant himself wherein he alleged that he made several attempts to find out other accommodations but could not succeed, but this affidavit has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. A perusal of the said affidavit would however, show that it was not indi cated therein what actual efforts had been made by the tenant in that direction. From a mere bold statement without there being any further details it could not be said that the tenant made real sincere efforts to obtain any other accommodation on rent or otherwise. On such vague allegations no reasonable person could have reached to the conclusion that the tenants made sin cere efforts to find out any other alterna tive accommodation.;