WPMS/2224/2009 of RAM NIWAS AGGARWAL Vs ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE and OTHERS on 30 December 2009

1. Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. (IV), Dehradun.

2. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun. 3. Sri Anshul Gupta, S/O Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta, R/O Bhagwan Das Quarters, Dehradun. 3. Sri Anshul Gupta, S/O Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta, R/O Bhagwan Das Quarters, Dehradun.

…Respondents.. .

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C.Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-caveator.

Date December 30, 2009.

Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashok Aggarwal seeks permission to correct the particulars of respondent no.3 to the petition. He stated that inadvertently, the name of deceased Suman Gupta has been writteninstead of the name of Sri Anshul GuptaS/O Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta, R/O Bhagwan Das Quaraters Dehradun. Permission granted.

2. The petitioner shall file amended memo of parties during the course of the day and the array of parties be corrected accordingly.

3. Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally at the admission stage.

4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29-4-2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun and the order dated 30-11-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge/ F.T.C. IV, Dehradun. By the order dated 29-4-2008, the learned Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application moved by the landlady under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises in question within a period of thirty days. By the order dated 30-11-2009, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the landlady Smt. Suman Gupta (since deceased) moved an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question for demolition and reconstruction of the same alleging therein that she is the landlady and the opposite party Ram Niwas Agrawal is the tenant on the ground floor of House No. 26/36 Khadri Mohalla, Dehradun. The said house is more than 80 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. It was also alleged that the material used in the said house has already outlived its utility and the house may fall down at any time. It was also alleged that a portion of the said house had already fallen down and a notice was also received from the Nagar Nigam in that connection to demolish the house, else the landlady would be held responsible for any damage.

6. The release application was resisted by the petitioner alleging that the house in question is not in a dilapidated condition and it does not require demolition and reconstruction. It was also alleged that the application was made by the landlady with mala fide intention and ulterior motive.

7. During the pendency of the release application, the applicant-landlady had died. She was substituted by her legal heir Anshul Gupta.

8. Both the parties led documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexures in support of their respective contentions. The learned Prescribed Authority heard both the parties and after going through the evidence led by them, he found that the application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, by order dated 29-4-2008, the application was allowed.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant-petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Rent Control Appeal No. 42 of 2008, which was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. IV, Dehradun. The learned appellate court did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 30-11-2009, which gave rise to the present petition.

10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed before this Court.

11. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675 that “On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.”

12. In the case “Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash” [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal.”

13. I have perused the judgment and orders passed by the two courts below. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court on the point of dilapidated condition of the house in question. The Prescribed Authority also found that the four conditions laid down under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act are also fulfilled. The findings are recorded on appraisal of evidence led by the parties. In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as a court to appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence, so as to arrive at a different conclusion. The findings have been recorded by the courts below on appraisal of evidence led by the parties. I do not find any perversity in the impugned orders passed by the two courts below.

14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to vacate the disputed accommodation, provided three years’ period may be granted to him. On the other hand, Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent no.3, after having received instruction from his client, has agreed to grant 1,1/2 year’s time to the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver its vacant possession to the landlord before the expiry of the said period.

15. For the reasons and discussion above, I find that the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court do not suffer from any manifest error of law. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the admission stage.

16. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. Costs easy. However, the petitioner is granted 1,1/2 year’s time to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord- respondent no. 3 before expiry of the said period, provided the petitioner furnishes a written undertaking to that effectbefore the Prescribed Authority within a period of eight weeks from today. It is further provided that the petitioner shall continue to pay/deposit the rent/damages to the landlord-respondent no.3 month to month by the seventh day of the next month for every previous month till the expiry of the aforesaid period of 1,1/2 year. In case no undertaking is furnished by the petitioner, as directed above, the landlord-respondent no.3 would be at liberty to get the disputed premises vacated through Court in accordance with law.

RCP

(B.S.Verma,J.)