# Krishna Kumar Maheshwari v. Smt. Asha Gupta

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ A ( Rent Control) No. 2277 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajiv Joshi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kumar-maheshwari-v-smt-asha-gupta-47173
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Urban
Building
Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1) & 22 - Eviction
suit - Word 'Bona fide need' - Meaning -
It should receive useful meaning rather
struck off and should attach a practical
meaning granted by realistic of life - Held,
the landlord has clearly established that
shop in question is needed by her son to
start on-line trading and share business
and the need of the landlord is 'bona fide'
and genuine. (Para 21 and 22)
B. UP Urban Building Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 -
Eviction suit - Comparative hardship of
landlord and tenant - Landlord was not in
possession
of
any
alternate
accommodation, the tenement in question
is situated in four storeyed building and
only
ground
floor
is
commercial
-
Concurrent finding - Held, the tenant has
unnecessarily held up the shop in question
and therefore the ground of comparative
hardship is also in favour of the landlord -
High
Court
found
no
perversity
or
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irrationality in the findings recorded by
the authorities below. (Para 24, 29 and
41)
C. Eviction suit - Concurrent finding of
the Courts below - Judicial review -
Scope of interference - Scope of judicial
review is very limited and narrow in
supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court over subordinate Courts - Held, it
is not to correct the errors in the orders
of the court below but to remove
manifest and patent errors of law and
jurisdiction
without
acting
as
an
appellate authority - High Court found
no scope for judicial review. (Para 30
and 41)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

8 All. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Asha Gupta
155
are the owners and landlords of the
property in question. In such proceeding
which is based only on the question of
arrears of rent and ejectment, the question
of title and ownership cannot be decided.
The Judge Small Causes Court cannot
decide the question of title between the
parties."

10. A similar view has been
expressed
in
a
short
but
sterling
enunciation of the principles in Sharafat
Hussain and others Vs. XIth Addl.
District Judge, Moradabad, 1992(2)
ARC 307 where it has been held by S.C.
Verma, J. :

"2. In a suit for arrears of rent
and ejectment filed by one Smt. Paigham
bari Begum, the petitioner has sought
impleadment as necessary party. Both the
Courts have held that in a suit for arrears
of rent and ejectment, which is basically
a suit between the Landlord and tenant,
the
plaintiff's
impleadment
is
not
necessary and in case he is entitled either
as owner or as landlord he may initiate
separate proceedings for establishing his
title and for retention of his possession,
in case he is in possession. I find no
reason the interfere with the order of
Judge,
Small
Causes
Courts
dated
13.01.1990
and
the
order
dated
26.08.1991 by the learned Additional
District Judge, Moradabad in rejecting
the
petitioner's
application
for
impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition
has no merit and is accordingly in limine.

11. It is, thus, apparent that the
courts below, in declining the petitioner's
prayer to be impleaded in a rent suit, have
not committed any error of law that may
merit interference by this Court.

12. In the result this petition fails and
is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Writ A ( Rent Control) No. 2277 of 2021

Krishna Kumar Maheshwari ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Asha Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ayush Khanna, Sri Atul Dayal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Sri Arvind
Srivastava, Ms. Shreya Gupta

A.
Civil
Law
-
UP
Urban
Building
Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1) & 22 - Eviction
suit - Word 'Bona fide need' - Meaning -
It should receive useful meaning rather
struck off and should attach a practical
meaning granted by realistic of life - Held,
the landlord has clearly established that
shop in question is needed by her son to
start on-line trading and share business
and the need of the landlord is 'bona fide'
and genuine. (Para 21 and 22)
B. UP Urban Building Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 -
Eviction suit - Comparative hardship of
landlord and tenant - Landlord was not in
possession
of
any
alternate
accommodation, the tenement in question
is situated in four storeyed building and
only
ground
floor
is
commercial
-
Concurrent finding - Held, the tenant has
unnecessarily held up the shop in question
and therefore the ground of comparative
hardship is also in favour of the landlord -
High
Court
found
no
perversity
or
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irrationality in the findings recorded by
the authorities below. (Para 24, 29 and
41)
C. Eviction suit - Concurrent finding of
the Courts below - Judicial review -
Scope of interference - Scope of judicial
review is very limited and narrow in
supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court over subordinate Courts - Held, it
is not to correct the errors in the orders
of the court below but to remove
manifest and patent errors of law and
jurisdiction
without
acting
as
an
appellate authority - High Court found
no scope for judicial review. (Para 30
and 41)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand
Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 : 1999 SCFBRC 330
2. Pramod Kumar Vs VI A.D.J., Bijnor & ors.,
2000(1) ARC 185
3. Muttu Lal Vs Radhey Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596
4. Bega Begum Vs Abdul Ahad Khan, AIR 1979
SC 272 : 1986 SCFBRC 346
5. Jagdish Chandra Vs D.J., Kanpur Nagar & ors.
2008 2 ARC 756
6. Hariom Vs A.D.J. & ors. 2009 (2) ARC 802
7. Sarla Ahuja. Vs United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,(1996) 5 SCC 353
8. D. N. Banerji Vs P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58
9. Waryam Singh & anr. Vs Amarnath & anr.
AIR 1954 SC 215
10. Mohd. Yunus Vs Mohd. Mustaqim & ors. AIR
1984 SC 38
11. Rena Drego Vs Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998)
3 SCC 341,
12. Chandra Bhushan Vs Beni Prasad & ors.,
(1999) 1 SCC 70
13. Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs
Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171
14. Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs Dyes & Chemical
Workers' Union & anr.,(1999) 2 SCC 143)
15. Union of India & ors. Vs Himmat Singh
Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521)
16.
Ajaib
Singh
Vs
Sirhind
Co-opeative
Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd.,
(1999) 6 SCC 82
17. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs Indian Overseas
Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4
SCC 245
18. Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & ors.Vs
Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & ors. (2010) 2 SCC
432
19. Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF & ors.
Vs Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244
20. U.O.I. Vs R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush
Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for
the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the
Additional District Judge Court No.22
Kanpur Nagar dismissing the Rent Appeal
No. 96 of 2011 and affirming the order of
the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar
dated 31.5.2011 passed in P.A. Case No. 6
of 2010 (Smt . Asha Gutpa Vs. Krishna
Kumar Maheshwari), the tenant-petitioner
has preferred the present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

FACTS

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts as
reflected from the record are that the shop
in question at premises no. 53/7 (new no.
53/19) Nayaganj, Kanpur, is under the
tenancy of the tenant-petitioner on rent of
Rs. 1000 per month. The premises in
8 All. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Asha Gupta
157
question is old one and is covered by the
provisions
of
U.P.
Urban
Building
Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act'). The respondent-landlord filed an
application on 11.6.2010, before the
prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) of
the Act setting-up the need of her son
namely, Arpit Gupta, for doing on-line
trading/share business from the tenement in
question. The case was registered as P.A.
Case No. 6 of 2010. It is stated in the
release application that the husband of the
landlady was running his business in a
rented
shop
at
premises
no.
51/46
Nayaganj, Kanpur, who was being harassed
by his landlord and besides it, her three
sons namely Arpit Gupta, Arjit Gupta and
Anubhav Gupta, were also in need of the
disputed shop, more particularly, her son -
Arpit Gupta was having the need for
running the shop for on-line trading/share
business and therefore, need of the landlord
with regard to disputed tenement is bona
fide and genuine. It is further stated that in
the application the tenant-petitioner has
unnecessarily held up the disputed shop
and is not doing any business in the same.

4. The tenant-petitioner filed a
written-statement disputing the need of the
landlord by stating that the husband of the
landlord-respondent was doing business
from shop no. 51/46 along with his
youngest son Anubhav Gupta at a very
large scale in the name and style of M/s
Anubhav Enterprises. Arpit Gupta, is also
doing on-line share/trading business from
Birhana Road, Kanpur, and Arjit Gupta,
was residing with his in-laws at Hatiya and
was also doing business. It is further stated
by tenant-petitioner that the entire premises
up to 4rth Floor was commercialized, the
landlord- respondent had let out two shops
on the ground floor after vacating the same
by the tenant and as such they had the
vacated shop in their possession, and the
said shop could be used for establishing her
son namely Arpit Gupta.

5. Parties in support of their
respective cases exchanged the affidavits.

6. After hearing the parties and on the
basis of the materials available on record,
the prescribed authority vide its order dated
31.5.2011 allowed the release application
of the landlord and directed the tenantpetitioner to vacate the tenement within
three months.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the
prescribed authority, the tenant-petitioner
filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act,
registered as Rent Appeal No. 96 of 2011.
During the pendency of the appeal before
the appellate authority, the tenant-petitioner
filed an application for additional evidence
under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. bringing on
record
the
report
of
the
Advocate
Commissioner
dated
10.9.2018
of
Injunction Suit No. 1838 of 2018 and also
filed another application for additional
evidence bringing on record. GST R-No. 9
of financial year 2017-18 to prove that he is
carrying business in the name and style of
M/s Krishna Kumar & Company from the
tenement in question.

8. The appellant authority vide
judgment
and
order
dated
4.3.2020,
dismissed the appeal filed by the tenantpetitioner and affirmed the judgment and
order dated 31.5.2011, passed by the
prescribed authority.

9. Both the aforesaid orders passed by
the authorities below are impugned in the
present writ petition.

PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior
Advocate submits that the finding recorded
by both the authorities are perverse in as
much as the respondent-landlord has
sufficient accommodation to establish her
son- Arpit Gupta, and further the husband
of landlord was running business from a
shop bearing no. 57/48 at Nayaganj,
Kanpur and the proceedings against the
petitioner were collusive. He further
submits
that
the
entire
premises
is
commercial and there are repeated lettings
by the landlord.

RESPONDENT'S
SUBMISSION

11. Per contra Ms. Shreya Gupta,
learned counsel for the landlord submits
that the tenant-petitioner has not disputed
the need of landlord for establishing her
son
Arpit
Gupta
in
the
tenanted
accommodation in question and the matter
is being contested by the tenant only on the
ground of availability of alternate shops.
According to the learned counsel, as a
matter of fact, the tenant-petitioner himself
has stated that the offered shop is not
suitable for business, from which it stands
proved that the said shop is also not
suitable for her son to carry on his business.
She further submits that both the courts
below have concurrently held that the need
of the landlord for establishing her son
Arpit Gupta is genuine, pressing and bona
fide which cannot be interfered under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. Ms. Shreya Gupta , next submits
that the alternate shops were offered to the
tenant-petitioner on the third floor of the
building in question but the said offer has
been refused by the tenant-petitioner and
therefore, there is no scope for interference
by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. She
further submits that the appellate authority
returned the finding of fact, that the
tenement in question is not being used by
the tenant-petitioner for carrying on his
business and both the courts below has
rightly
recorded
the
findings
that
respondent-landlord was not in possession
of any alternate accommodation. She
further submits that the release application
was pending since 2010 but during this
long period, no efforts were made by the
tenant-petitioner to search for alternate
accommodation and therefore comparative
hardship
is
also
in
favour
of
the
respondent-landlord.

13. I have considered the rival
submissions so raised by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

Points for Determination

14. On the basis of pleadings by the
respective parties, the following points
arise for consideration by this Court in the
present petition:

(1) Whether the need of the
landlord for settling her son is bona fide
and pressing as per the provisions of
Section 21 (1) of the Act?

(2) Whether the question of
comparative hardship in regard to the
disputed shop favours the landlord or the
tenant?

(3) Whether the finding recorded
by both the authorities have any scope for
judicial review?

Point No.1

15. The first and foremost question
which is to be adjudicated in the present
case as to whether the shop in question is
bona fide need of landlord as per the
8 All. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Asha Gupta
159
provisions under Section 21(1) of U.P. Act
no.13 of 1972. For this purpose, it is
necessary to have a glance to the provisions
under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act no.
XIII of 1972, which read as under:-

Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no.
XIII of 1972

"21: Proceedings for release of
building under occupation of tenant-

(1)The Prescribed Authority may
on an application of the landlord in that
behalf order the eviction of a tenant from
the building under tenancy or any specified
part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the
following grounds exists , namely-

(a) that the building is bona fide
required either in its existing from or after
demolition and new construction by the
landlord for occupation by himself or any
member of his family, or any person for
whose benefit it is held by him, either for
residential purposes or for purposes of any
profession, trade, or calling or where the
landlord is the trustee of a public charitable
trust , for the objects of the trust;"

16. At this stage, it becomes
necessary to consider as to what is the
meaning of the word "bona fide need",
while
adjudicating
and
deciding
the
application for release, moved under
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of
1972.

17. The word 'bona fide' has been
interpreted by His Lordship of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Sarup
Gupta V. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
(1999) 6 SCC 222 : 1999 SCFBRC 330,
and it has been held :-

"The term bona fide or genuinely
refers to a state or mind. Requirement is not
mere desire. The degree of intensity
contemplated by "required bona fide" is
suggestive of legislative intent that a mere
desire which is the outcome of whim or
fancy is not taken note of by the rent
control legislation. A requirement in the
absence of felt need which is an outcome of
sincere,honest desire, in contradistinction
with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a
tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming
to occupy the premises for himself or for
any member of the family would entitle
him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked
at from this angle, any setting of the facts
and circumstances protruding the need of
the landlord and its bona fides would be
capable of successfully withstanding the
test of objective determination by the
Court. The judge of facts should place
himself in the arm chair of the landlord and
then ask the question to himself whether in
the given facts substantiated by the
landlord the need to occupy the premises
can be said to be natural, real, sincere,
honest. If the answer be in the positive, the
need is bona fide. The failure on the part of
the landlord to substantiate the pleaded
need, or, in a given case, positive material
brought on record by the tenant enabling
the court drawing an inference that the
reality was to the contrary and the landlord
was merely attempting at finding out a
pretence or pretext for getting rid of the
tenant, would be enough to persuade the
Court certainly to deny its judicial
assistance to the landlord."

18. This Court also in the case of
Pramod Kumar Vs. VI Additional
District
Judge,
Bijnor
and
others,
2000(1) ARC 185, has defined 'bona fide
need' on the basis of decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Muttu
Lal Vs. Radhey Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596
and Bega Begum Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan,
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
AIR 1979 SC 272 : 1986 SCFBRC 346, as
under :-

"The word 'bona fide' means
genuinely and sincerely i.e. in good faith in
contradiction to mala fide. The requirement
of an accommodation is not bona fide if it
is sought for ulterior purpose but once it is
established that the landlord requires the
accommodation for the purpose which he
alleges there is of ulterior motive to evict
the tenant that requirement should be bona
fide"

19. In the same manner the word
'bona fide' has been interpreted in the case
of Jagdish Chandra Vs. District 8 Judge,
Kanpur Nagar and others 2008 2 ARC
756 and 2009 (2) ARC 802 Hariom Vs.
Additional District Judge and others.

20. Further, the Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Ahuja. Vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd.,(1996) 5 SCC
353, held as under :-

"The rent controller should not
proceed on the assumption that the
landlord's requirement is not bona fide.
When the landlord shows a prima facie
case a presumption that the requirement of
the landlord is bona fide is liable to be
drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate
terms to the landlord as to how else he can
adjust himself without giving possession of
the tenanted premises. While deciding the
question of bona fides of the requirement of
the landlords, it is quite unnecessary to
make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself."

21. Accordingly, The word 'bona fide
need' should receive useful meaning rather
struck off and should attach a practical
meaning granted by realistic of life.

22.
In
the present
case,
the
respondent-landlord has clearly established
that shop in question is needed by her son
to start on-line trading and share business
and the need of the landlord is 'bona fide'
and genuine. It is further evident from the
bare reading of written statement of the
tenant- petitioner that specifically he has
not disputed the need of the landlord to
establish her son in the shop in dispute and
in view of the above set of facts, as per the
interpretation of word "bona fide need" as
given by the Apex Court and also by this
Court, the need of the landlord is genuine
and 'bona fide' as held by the courts below.

POINT NO.2

23. Now coming to the question of
comparative hardship of the tenant and
landlord, it reflects from the record that no
effort has been made by the tenant in order
to search any other accommodation. Even
the appellate authority has returned the
finding of fact to the effect that the
tenement in question is not being used by
the petitioner-tenant for carrying on his
business. The finding so returned by the
appellate authority is as under: -

"पत्रािली में प्रत्यथी िी ओर से सूची
84ग से अवभलेख िागज संख्या 85ग/1 ि85ग/2
िावमिशयल टैक्स विभाग उत्तर प्रदेश िा प्रपत्र
दाखखल है। वजसिे अिलोिन से स्पष्ट हो रहा है
वि अपीलाथी द्वारा प्रश्नगत भिन संख्या 53/19
में जो मेससि िृष्ण िुमार एण्ड िम्पनी नाम से
व्यिसाय िर रहा था वदनॉि 20.06.2017 िो
अपना व्यिसाय बन्द िर वदया है। िागज
संख्या -85ग/5 ि 85ग/6 अवसस्मेन्ट िर्ि 201617 वजसिी समाखि वदनॉि 30.04.16 है,
िवमिशयल टैक्स विभाग उत्तर प्रदेश में मेससि
िृष्ण िुमार एण्ड िम्पनी िी ओर से दाखखल
प्रपत्र जो यू०पी० बैट रूल्स 2007 िे वनयम
8 All. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Asha Gupta
161
44(1) में जो वििरण भेजा गया है उसमें िैट
गुड्स तथा नाम िैट गुड्स िे िालम में शून्य
दवशित हो रहा है। इसी प्रिार िागज संख्या
85/7, 85ग/8 अवसस्मेन्ट िर्ि 2016-17 समाखि
वदनॉि 31 मई 2016, एिं अवसस्मेन्ट िर्ि 201617, एिं िागज संख्या 85ग/9 85ग/10
अवसस्मेन्ट िर्ि 2016-17 िर्ि समाखि 30 जून
2016 तथा 85ग/11, 85ग/12 अवसस्मेन्ट िर्ि
2016-17 समाि वदनॉि 31.07.16 एिं 85ग/13,
85ग/14 अवसस्मेन्ट िर्ि 16-17 समाखि वदनॉि
31.08.16, 85ग/15 ि 85ग/16 समाखि वदनॉि
30.09.16, 85ग/17 एिं 85ग/18 समाखि वदनॉि
31.10.2016, 85ग/19 ि 85ग/20 समाि वदनॉि
30.11.16 इसी प्रिार 85ग/21 ि 85ग/22 ि
85ग/23, 85ग/24 तथा 85ग/25, 85ग/26
वजसिी समाखि वदनॉि क्रमशः 31.12.16,
31.01.17 एिं 28.02.2017 है में भी विसी भी
प्रिार िी व्यिसावयि िस्तुओं िा क्रम विक्रय
िा वििरण नहीं है। उपोरक्त सभी में िैट गुडस
ि नान िैट गुडस क्रय विक्रय िे िालम में शून्य
दवशित है वजससे स्पष्ट है वि प्रश्नगत विरायेदारी
िाली दुिान में मेससि िृष्ण िुमार एण्ड िम्पनी
द्वारा िोई व्यिसाय नहीं चलाया जा रहा है और
वदनॉि 20.06.17 िो व्यिसाय समाि िर
वलया गया है।"

24. The appellate court has rightly
concluded that the respondent-landlord was
not
in
possession
of
any
alternate
accommodation, the tenement in question
is situated in four storeyed building and as
such only ground floor is commercial and
rest of the floor are purely residential.

25. Out of five shops situated on the
ground floor of the building, two shops
were originally in the tenancy of Rajesh
Gupta and one Bhatia respectively, were
extremely small admeasuring roughly 2x6
and 2x4 ft. respectively. The shops in the
possession of Rajesh Gupta got vacated on
1.12.1999 and was let out to Mangal Chand
Gupta in 1999 itself. The other shops in
tenancy of Bhatia got vacated in the year
1993 and was let out in the same to one Om
Prakash
Kesarwani.
Hence
both
the
authorities has rightly concluded that these
shops are neither available nor sufficient
for satisfying the need of landlord. The
shop in question on the ground floor which
is ought to be released for fulfilling the
need of the landlord by filing present
release application. The shop situated in the
ground floor which tenancy of Nirmal Surti
was sought to be released for fulfilling the
need of the son of the landlord Arjit Gupta
by filing release application no. 5 of 2010,
however, the said application was rejected
by the prescribed authority on 12.08.2011
and was confirmed by the appellate
authority vide judgment dated 28.08.2018.

26. The fifth shop on the floor was in
the tenancy of one Lala Ram Chandra, the
respondent land filed Release Application
No.7 of 2010 under Section 21 (1) (A) of
the Act for setting up the need of another
son Anubhav Gupta. The said release
application was also rejected by the
prescribed authority but allowed by the
appellate authority and said shop ultimatly
came into possession of the landlord in the
year 2017, since when it is being used by
her son Anubhav and husband of the
landlord to carry on two separate business
from the same shop on account of lack of
sufficient commercial accommodation.

27. On the basis of above facts, both
the authorities returned the categorical and
concurrent findings of fact to the effect that
the rest of the floors of the building were
being used either as an advocate's office or
Aadat, which was not for commercial
purposes. This fact is additionally born out
from the description of tenement situated in
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the third floor as given in the release
application filed against tenant Nandlal.

28. The findings of the court below
that none of the above accommodation got
vacated except one in the tenancy of Lala
Ram Chandra, the release of shop in
tenancy of Lal Ram Chandra is also of no
consequence in as much as same got
released for fulfilling the need of Anubhav
Gupta, another son of the landlord who is
now using it to carry on his business
therefrom
and
therefore,
both
the
authorities have rightly concluded that
alleged alternate accommodation were
either insufficient or not available to the
landlord for carrying on his business and
that tenement in question is bonfidely
required by her son namely Arpit Gupta.

29. Since the specific findings has
been recorded by the appellate court that
the tenant-petitioner has unnecessarily held
up the shop in question and therefore, the
ground of comparative hardship is also in
favour of the landlord and she will suffer
irreparably if the shop is not released in her
favour.

POINT NO.3

30. Now coming to the question of
scope for interference with the concurrent
findings recorded by the authorities below,
it may be stated at the very outset that in
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over
subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial
review is very limited and narrow. It is not
to correct the errors in the orders of the
court below but to remove manifest and
patent errors of law and jurisdiction
without acting as an appellate authority.

31. This power involves a duty on the
High Court to keep the inferior courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and to see that they do what their
duty requires and that they do it in a legal
manner. But this power does not vest the
High Court with any unlimited prerogative
to correct all species of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It
must be restricted to cases of grave
dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of
fundamental principle of law or justice,
where grave injustice would be done unless
the High Court interferes.

32. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R.
Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave
miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation
of law calling for intervention, it is not for
the High Court under articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution to interfere."

33. A Constitution Bench of Apex
Court examined the scope of Article 227 of
the Constitution in Waryam Singh and
another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR
1954
SC 215 and made
following
observations at p. 571 :

"This power of superintendence
conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out
by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways
Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal.
193, to be exercised most sparingly and
only in appropriate cases in order to keep
the Subordinate Courts within the bounds
of their authority and not for correcting
mere errors".

34. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd.
Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the
Court held that this Court has very limited
scope under Article 227 of the Constitution
and even the errors of law cannot be
8 All. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Asha Gupta
163
corrected in exercise of power of judicial
review under Article 227/226 of the
Constitution. The power can be used
sparingly when it comes to the conclusion
that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its
jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous
presumption of jurisdiction. The High
Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative
to correct all species of hardship or wrong
decision. For interference, there must be a
case of flagrant abuse of fundamental
principles of law or where order of the
Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave
injustice.

35. It is well settled that power under
Article
227/226
is
of
the
judicial
superintendence which cannot be used to
up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever
erroneous those may be, unless such
conclusions
are
so
perverse
or
so
unreasonable that no Court could ever have
reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs.
Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341;
Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad &
ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai
Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand
Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171; and
Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes &
Chemical Workers' Union & Anr.,(1999)
2 SCC 143).

36. Power under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution is not in the nature of
power of appellate authority enabling reappreciation of evidence. It should not alter
the conclusion reached by the Competent
Statutory Authority merely on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union
of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh
Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521).

37. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Coopeative Marketing cum Processing
Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82,
the Court has held that there is no
justification for the High Court to substitute
its view for the opinion of the Authorities/
Courts below as the same is not permissible
in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution.

38. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen
Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the
Court observed that it is impermissible for
the Writ Court to re-appreciate evidence
liberally and drawing conclusions on its
own on pure questions of fact for the
reason that it is not exercising appellate
jurisdiction over the awards passed by
Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by
the fact finding authority duly constituted
for the purpose ordinarily should be
considered to have become final. The same
cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of
having based on materials or evidence not
sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ
Court to warrant those findings. At any
rate, as long as they are based upon some
material which are relevant for the purpose
no interference is called for. Even on the
ground that there is yet another view which
can reasonably and possibly be taken the
High Court can not interfere.

39. In Abdul Razak (D) through
Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram
Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432,
Court reminded that while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High
Courts should not act as if they are
exercising an appellate jurisdiction.

40.

In
Commandant,
22nd
Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder
Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, Apex Court
referring to its earlier decision in Union
of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC
592 observed that only in an extreme case,
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where on the face of it there is perversity or
irrationality, there can be judicial review
under Articles 226 or 227.

41. Upon analysis of the aforesaid
decisions, in the opinion of this Court, there
being no perversity or irrationality in the
findings recorded by the authorities below,
there appears to be no scope for judicial
review in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

CONCLUSION

42. As a result of aforesaid
discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that no good ground exists warranting
interference with the orders impugned in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

43. The writ petition accordingly
lacks merit and, is dismissed.

44. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 11.8.2021/Akbar

45. After the judgment has been
delivered,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner-tenant made a prayer that some
time may be granted to the tenant to vacate
the disputed shop.

46.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-landlord has no objection in
case the reasonable time is granted to the
tenant-petitioner by this Court. He further
states that tenant should have paid the
damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousands) per month.

47. Under these circumstances, the
tenant is, accordingly, granted time up to
31st December,2021 to hand over the
peaceful possession of the disputed shop to
the respondent-landlady subject to the
tenant for giving an undertaking within two
weeks from today before the prescribed
authority to the following effect:

1. The tenant shall hand over
the peaceful possession of the shop to
the
landlady
on
or
before
31st
December, 2021.

2. The tenant shall pay the
damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per
month.

3. The tenant shall not induct
any other person in the shop.

48. It is made clear that if the
tenant fails to give the undertaking
withing aforesaid period or fails to
comply with any of the undertaking, it
will open to the landlady to get the order
enforced.
----------
(2021)08ILR A164
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Ceiling No. 50 of 1996

Satbir Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
H.S. Sahai, Badrul Hasan, Chhote Lal
Yadav, Jagannath Prasad Yadav, Manjusha
Kapil, Mohd. Hayun Hasan, Mohsin Khan,
Qamarul Hasan, U S Sahai, Uma Shankar
Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.