# Smt. Savitri Devi and others Tenant/ v. Chandra Dhar Mishra Landlord/

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 162
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30697 of 2006
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-savitri-devi-and-others-tenant-v-chandra-dhar-mishra-landlord-40812
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Sri A.K. Mehrotra

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972Section
21
(1)
release
applicationbonafide
need
established-during
pendancy
of
release
application-No
effort made by tenant for searching
alternate
accommodation-concurrent
finding of facts recorded by courts blowNo illegality or infirmity shown-can not
be interfered by writ court.

Held: Para 16 & 20

Thus, it is evident that the Prescribed
Authority as well as the appellate Court
have recorded concurrent findings of
fact, which are neither perverse nor
irrational.
The
Courts
below
have
considered each and every aspect of the
case while releasing the accommodation,
in dispute, in favour of the respondentlandlord.

The concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the Court below do not suffer from
any
illegality
or
infirmity
requiring
interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.
Case law discussed:
UPRJ-208?, 1983 ARC-416, 1979 ARC-212,
1989 UPRJ-485, AIR 1984 (1) 347, 1984 ARC
(1)-239, 1978 ARC-314, 1976 ARC-328, 2003
(6) SCC-675, 2004 (1) ARC-613, 1999 (1)
ARC-324, 2006 (1) ARC-588

## Text

162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Petition Allowed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30697 of 2006

Smt. Savitri Devi and others ...Tenant/
Petitioners
Versus
Chandra Dhar Mishra ...Landlord/
 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri O.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri A.K. Mehrotra

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972Section
21
(1)
release
applicationbonafide
need
established-during
pendancy
of
release
application-No
effort made by tenant for searching
alternate
accommodation-concurrent
finding of facts recorded by courts blowNo illegality or infirmity shown-can not
be interfered by writ court.

Held: Para 16 & 20

Thus, it is evident that the Prescribed
Authority as well as the appellate Court
have recorded concurrent findings of
fact, which are neither perverse nor
irrational.
The
Courts
below
have
considered each and every aspect of the
case while releasing the accommodation,
in dispute, in favour of the respondentlandlord.

The concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the Court below do not suffer from
any
illegality
or
infirmity
requiring
interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.
Case law discussed:
UPRJ-208?, 1983 ARC-416, 1979 ARC-212,
1989 UPRJ-485, AIR 1984 (1) 347, 1984 ARC
(1)-239, 1978 ARC-314, 1976 ARC-328, 2003
(6) SCC-675, 2004 (1) ARC-613, 1999 (1)
ARC-324, 2006 (1) ARC-588

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. The petitioners have challenged
the validity and correctness of judgments
and orders dated 17..2.2004 and 4.5.2006
(appended
as
Annexures 3
and
4
respectively to the writ petition) passed by
Prescribed
Authority/Additional
Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Court no. 2 and
Additional District Judge/Special Judge
(S.C./S.T.
Act)
Kanpur
Nagar
respectively.

2. The dispute giving rise to the
instant
writ
petition
relates
to
accommodation under the tenancy of the
petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-,
consisting
of
five
rooms,
kitchen,
varandah, court-yard, laterine/bathroom
situated on the first floor of premises no.
108/27-A, Lenin Park, P. Road, Kanpur
Nagar.

3.

Respondent-landlord
moved
release 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'),
which was registered as case no. 45 of
1997. It was alleged in the release
application that Sri Allu Mal and Sri Daya
Ram were joint tenants of the premises, in
dispute since 1960. On the death of Sri
Allu Mal, who had shifted to Gauhati in
1960, Sri Ganga Ram son of Late Sri
Daya Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners
inherited
the
tenancy.
1 All] Rama Shankar Singh and others V. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others
163
Respondent-landlord was living in the
second floor of premises no. 106/261-B
Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar consiting
two rooms, kitchen and latrine/bathroom.
On the basis of oral family settlement,
house no. 106/261-B, Gandhi Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar came to the share of Dr.
Kala Dhar Mihsra and the premises, in
dispute, i.e., House no. 108/27-A Lenin
Park, P. Road, Kanpur Nagar fell in the
share of the respondent-landlord. Sri Kela
Dhar Mishra, brother of the respondentlandlord served the tenant with a notice
dated 30.8.1995 to vacate as the premisesin-dispute was urgently required by him.

4. Release application was contested
by the petitioners by filing joint written
statement
denying
the
allegations
contained therein, inter alia, that the
landlord has no genuine or bona fide need
of the accommodation-in- dispute as he
was co-owner of premises no. 106/261-B
Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar where he he
together with his family members was
comfortably residing; that separate no.
167 dated 24.8.1992 was allotted to the
landlord in the property at Gandhi Nagar,
which was concealed by him; that the oral
family settlement dated 2.2.1981 was not
only collusive but was made with a
ulterior motive to oust the petitioners
from the premises-in-dispute; and three
rooms and a varandah were got vacated
from one tenant M/s Vineet Printing Press
by the landlord, who is in possession of 8
rooms, five of them remain unused.

5. Release Application was allowed
by the Prescribed Authority/Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.
2, Kanur Nagar vide judgment and decree
dated 17.2.2004 with a direction to the
petitioners to vacate the accommodationin-dispute within three months from the
date of decree.

6.

Aggrieved,
the
petitioners
preferred Rent Appeal No. 28 of 2004
before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar,
which was transferred to the Court of
Additional District Judge/Special Judge
(S.C./S.T Act), Kanpur Nagar. After
hearing the parties and considering the
material available on record, the appeal
was ultimately dismissed vide judgment
and order dated 4.5.2006 and hence this
writ petition.

7. Counsel for the petitioners
contended that the finding recorded by the
learned lower appellate Court that written
statement of the petitioners was barred by
explanation (i) of Section 21(1)(a) of the
Act is perverse as the Courts below have
not recorded any finding on the specific
plea of the petitioners that S/Sri Teju Mal
Singhani, Kishan Lal Singhani and Arjun
Das Singhani were not dependents of the
petitioners and late Ganga Ram as while
considering the parallel provision of
Section 12(3) of the Act, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has held that the alternate
accommodation acquired by any other
member of the family cannot be taken
into consideration until and unless it is
found that such family members were
dependent upon the sitting tenant. He
submitted
that
there
was
sufficient
evidence on record that the alleged family
settlement of the respondent-landlord was
nothing but a device to eject the
petitioners in its garb. He also argued that
the Courts below have neither considered
the bona fide and genuine need of the
petitioners nor considered the question of
comparative hardship of the petitioners, as
such, the impugned judgments are not
sustainable in the eye of law and are liable
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
to be quashed. He urged that the Courts
below totally ignored the report and map
of Vakil Commissioner in respect of three
houses of the respondent-landlord which
clarifies that the landlord has got eight
rooms in the basement-cum-ground floor
of the premises-in-dispute.

8. He further urged that on the one
hand, the Prescribed Authority held that
explanation (i) of Section 21(1)(a) of the
Act is not applicable to the present case
and case has to be decided on the basis of
bona fide need and hardship, and on the
other, it has not recorded any specific
finding about the comparative hardship.
He lastly urged that the Courts below
have
neither
decided
comparative
hardship nor the bona fide need and have
completely ignored the report of the
Advocate
Commission
about
the
accommodation of the landlord. It is
submitted that the Courts below have not
considered the factum of non-availability
of any other accommodation to the
petitioners in Kanpur Nagar and the fact
that the respondent-landlord has other
properties in Kanpur Nagar.

9. In support of his contentions,
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
upon the decisions in Ratan Lal and
another V. Prescribed Authority-cumMunsif Saharanur and others-U.P.R.J208; Ram Babu and others V. Additional
District Judge and others-1983(II)ARC416; Ram Nath V. District Judge
Varanasi- ARC 1979-212; Alok Brothers
(Tea)Pvt.
Ltd.
Kanpur
Vs.
VIIIth
Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar
and
others-1989
U.P.R.J-485;
Rajeshwari Prasad V. Fateh Bahadur
Chaturvedi and others ARC 1984(1)-
347; Ved Prakash and others V. VIth
Additional District Judge Bulandshahr
and others- ARC 1984(I)-239 and Tilak
Ram Vs. The District Judge, Meerut and
others- 1978 ARC - 314.
10. Per contra, counsel for the
respondent-landlord raised a preliminary
objection that the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary
parties. He submitted that the persons
who
inherited
the
tenancy
of
the
accommodation-in-dispute on the death of
late Sri Ganga Ram were residing
together at the time of death of late Sri
Ganga Ram in the property-in-dispute
have not been impleaded. Admittedly, Sri
Nari was residing as tenant in the
accommodation, in dispute, but he has not
filed the writ petition. He urged that Sri
Prakash, petitioner no. 5 has acquired
another
accommodation
during
the
pendency of the release application, in the
same city, the petitioners being joint
tenants, can easily shift to the alternate
accommodation, acquired by petitioner
no. 5 and they have no legal right to
oppose
the
release
application.
He
vehemently urged that both the Courts
below have recorded clear finding of fact
on the question of bona fide need and
comparative hardship in favour of the
landlord, there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned judgments and the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.

Conclusions:

11. I have given thoughtful
considerations to the respective arguments
advanced by counsels for the parties and
perused the record.

Adverting to the case laws cited by
counsel for the petitioners, case of Ratan
Lal and another (supra) is on the issue of
comparative hardship wherein this Court
has held that Rule 16(2)(b) of the U.P.
1 All] Smt. Savitri Devi and others V. Chandra Dhar Mishra
165
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972 clearly
prescribes that one of such factors is
whether the tenant has available with him
suitable accommodation to which he
could
shift
his
business
without
substantial loss, there shall be greater
justification for allowing the application.
In the instant case, both the Courts below
have recorded concurrent finding of fact
that
the
tenants
have
alternate
accommodation available with them, as
such, this decision does not help the
petitioners.

12. In Ram Babu and others (supra)
this Court, on the facts and in the
circumstances of that case, held that under
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The question
of hardship is consequential finding. In
that case the finding in regard to bona fide
need was found to be vitiated in law and
that the finding of fact by passing the on
relevant consideration or material is not a
finding of fact. In the instant case, after
discussing the entire evidence, available
on record, both the Courts below have
arrived to the conclusion that the need of
the landlord is bona fide and his
comparative hardship is greater than the
petitioners, this decision also does not
support the case of the petitioners. So far
as the decision in Ram Nath (supra) is
concerned, the Court on the own peculiar
facts and circumstances of that case, held
that the question of bona fide and relative
hardship were without ascertaining the
actual accommodation available to the
landlady. This decision is also of no help
to the petitioners as the Courts below
have
ascertained
the
actual
accommodation available to the landlord
and it does not lay down any general rule
of law. As regards the decision in Alok
Brothers (Tea)Pvt. Ltd. Kanpur (supra),
counsel for the petitioners has placed
implicit reliance in paragraph 4 of the said
decision, wherein relying upon decision
of Full Bench of this Court in Chandra
Kumar Sha V. The District Judge-A.I.R.
1976 Allahabad-328, it was held that :-

"''Bona fide' means genuinely or in
good faith with no intention to deceive.
Thus, if the landlord comes to the Court
without being actuated by an ulterior
motive or if his need is not based on a
fanciful whim, it may be deemed to be
bona fide. On an ultimate analysis of the
case law on the point, therefore, bona fide
requirement of the landlord must be
considered on the above broad principles
subject,
however,
to
special
circumstances of each case. The court
must invariably consider the nature of the
need set up by the landlord in the light of
the surrounding circumstances whether
the
landlord
really
needs
the
accommodation for the required purpose
having regard to the suitability of that
accommodation for the said purpose."

13. In the instant case, petitioners
have not proved that the case of bona-fide
need has been set up by the respondentlandlord with mal intention to deceive, as
such, this decision also does not apply to
the facts and circumstances of the instant
case. In so far as decision Rajeshwari
Prasad (supra) is concerned, on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of that
case, this Court directed the Courts below
to re-determine the question of greater
hardship, which will happen to the parties
on account of rejection or allowing of the
application. It was further held that the
question of genuineness of the need of the
landlord will not be re-heard. In the case
on hand, the Courts below have already
considered and decided question of
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
hardship, as such, the petitioners are not
benefited by this decision as well. In Ved
Prakash and others (supra), this Court
considered the words ''bona fide and
comparative hardship' and held that if
finding
on
bona
fide
need
and
comparative hardship is given on the basis
of wrong approach, ignoring the evidence
on record and without considering the
suitability
of
suggested
alternative
accommodation, it cannot be sustained
and in Tilak Ram (supra), it was held by
this Court that comparison of hardships of
landlord and tenant is necessary under
amendment of Rule 16 of the Rules
framed under the Act by U.P. Act No. 28
of 1976. As already stated above, the
concurrent finding of fact on the issue of
bona fide need and comparative hardship
recorded by the Courts below being just,
apt and proper, these decisions do not
support the case of the petitioners.

14. The Courts below have arrived
at a conclusion on the basis of evidence
on record that all family members of late
Sri Ganga Ram were residing together at
the time of his death and opposite party
no.
8
had
acquired
alternate
accommodation in Kanpur Nagar itself
during
the
pendency
of
release
application. The relevant finding, in this
regard,
recorded
by
the
Prescribed
Authority, is as under:-

" izkFkhZ Onkjk fy;s x;s vk/kkj ds vuqlkj Jh xaxkjke
dh e`R;q ds ckn foi{khx.k crkSj okfjl iz'uxr Hkkx ds
fdjk;snkj gq, A izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k ds fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx
dh lnHkkfod rhoz ,oa mfpr vko';drk gS A foi{kh la[;k
2 Jh vtqZunkl fla?kkuh iz'uxr edku esa fuokl ugha djrk
gS cfYd og vius edku ua0 87@198 vkpk;Z uxj
dkuiqj esa fuokl djrk gS A foi{kh la0 4 Jh fd'kuyky
flagkuh Hkh vius edku ua0 127@MCY;w 1@269 lkdsr
uxj dkuiqj esa fuokl djrk gS A vr,ao iz'uxr eqdnesa esa
jsUV dUV~ksy ,DV la0 13 lu 1972 dh /kkjk 21(1) dk
izFke Li"Vhdj.k dk izkfo/kku izHkkoh gS ftlds dkj.k
foi{khx.k eqdnesa esa vius ,rjkt izLrqr djusa ls vojksf/kr
gS A foi{kh la0 1] 3] 5] 6] 7] 8 Onkjk vtqZunkl fla?kkuh
dks ifjlj ua0 87@198 vkpk;Z uxj dkuiqj esa fuokl
djuk vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS ysfdu dFku fd;k x;k gS fd
og iz'uxr edku esa ugha jg jgs gSa cfYd vyx jg jgs gSa
A fd'kykyk fla?kkuh dk ifjlj ua0 127@MCY;w 1@269
lkdsr uxj dkuiqj esa fuokl djuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS
rFkk vfxze dFku fd;k x;k gS fd muds iz'uxr edku esa
fuokl u djus o viuk futh edku vf?kxzfgr fd;s tkus ls
vU; foi{khx.k ij bldk dksbZ izHkko ugha iMrk gS vkSj
izLrqr izdj.k esa Li"Vhdj.k ua0 1 ykxw ugha gksrk gS A"

The further finding, recorded by the
appellate Court, in this regard, is as
under:-

".......;gkW ij ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh la0 1
lkfo=h nsoh xaxkjke dh iRuh gS foi{kh la0 2 vtqZunkl
fla/kkuh foi{kh la0 3 jes'k ,oa foi{kh la[;k 4 yxk;r
foi{kh la0 8 xaxkjke ds iq= gSa A ;g Hkh izrhr gksrk gS fd
ckn esa fd'kuyky fla/kkuh dh Hkh e`R;q gks x;h A ;gkW ij
;g mYys[k djuk Hkh mfpr gksxk fd bUgha dkj.kksa ls foi{kh
la0 2 vtqZunkl fla/kkuh la0 4 fd'kuyky fla/kkuh
vihykFkhZx.k Onkjk viuh vihy esa vius lkFk vihykFkhZ ds
#Ik esa Ik{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gS vkSj mUgsa jsLikUMsUV ua0 3
o 4 ds #Ik esa lfEefyr fd;k x;k gS A vr% ;g ekU; rF;
gS fd xaxkjke ds yMdksa vtqZunkl ,oa fd'kuyky fla/kkuh
fookfnr fdjk;snkjh okys edku ls vyx vius fy;s edkuksa
esa jg jgs gSa A Jherh lkfo=h nsoh vihykFkhZ ua-1 foi{kh
la0 1 tks xaxkjke dh fo/kok gSa] ds lkFk&lkFk xaxkjke ds
mijksDrkuqlkj lkr yMds Hkh okfjlku gq;s tks xaxkjke ds
e`R;q ds le; fookfnr edku esa jg jgs Fks ftuesa ls
vtqZunkl fla/kkuh ,oa fd'kuyky fla/kkuh vius vius vyx
vyx edku ysdj jg jgs gSa A"

On the question of bona fide need
and comparative hardship, the Prescribed
Authority, after consideration of entire
material available on record, has recorded
that:-

" bl izdkj mDr foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ
foHkktu esa vius HkkbZ dks izkIr Hkou la[;k 106@261 ch
esa mldh n;k esa jg jgk gS vkSj izkFkhZ ds ikl foHkktu esa
izkIr iz'uxr Hkou esa f'kQV djus ds vykok vU; dksbZ
fodYi ugha gS A iz'uxr Hkou ds Hkwfery ij izkFkhZ dk
vk;qZosfnd nokvksa dh QkesZ'kh] Dyhfud vkfn fLFkr gS vkSj
1 All] Smt. Savitri Devi and others V. Chandra Dhar Mishra
167
vkoklh; gsrq dksbZ fjDr LFkku ugha gS blfy, foi{khx.k dks
fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx dks izkFkhZ dks lnHkkfod okLrfod ,oa
rhozre vko';drk dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A
foi{kh la0 2] 4 o 8 Onkjk vU; vkokl izkIr dj fy;k
x;k gS blfy, mUgsa vc dksbZ dfBukbZ ugha gS vkSj foi{kh
ua0 8 dh vkifRr xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS A Ik=koyh
ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gS ftlls ;g izrhr gks fd
vU; foi{khx.k Onkjk nkSjku eqdnek vU; vkokl vkoaVu
djkus ;k izkIr djus gsrq iza;kl fd;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ ds ikl
viuk futh edku gksus ds dkj.k mls vU; edku vkoafVr
ugha gks ldrk gS tcfd foi{khx.k dks vU; edku vkoafVr
gks ldrk gS blfy;s rqyukRed dfBukbZ Hkh izkFkhZ ds I{k esa gS
A vr% foi{khx.k ds fdjk;snkjh okyk Hkkx izkFkhZ ds I{k esa
fueqZDr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj Ik;kZIr gS A"

Likewise, the appellate Court concurring
with the finding of fact recorded by the
Prescribed Authority has held that :-

"&&&& vr%eSa ugha ld>rk gwW fd tc pUnz iw.kZ feJk
ds Ik{k esa ckyd`".k dh fdjk;snkjh okyk Hkkx fueqZDr fd;k
x;k gS tc mldk laca/k pUnz/kj feJk ds fgLls esa vk;s
edku ls dgkW gks tkrk gS vkSj mldk ykHk vihykFkhZ dks
dSls feyrk A ;g Li"V ugha gksrk A vr% vihykFkhZ ds
foOnku vf/koDrk dk ;g dguk fd ckyd`".k dh fdjk;snkjh
okyk Hkkx tks fjDr gqvk og izkFkhZ ds dCts esa gS lgh ugha
yxrk A vr% izkFkhZ ds O;olk; ikfjokfjd I`k"Bhkwfe ifjokj ds
lnL;ksa ,oa foosfpr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mldh cksukQkbZM uhM
HkyhHkkWfr ifjyf{kr gksrh gS A
19& vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd rqyUkkRed ijs'kkuh (
dEijsfVo gkMZf'ki ) fdls T;knk gS A bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds
ifjokj esa ekU;#Ik esa 10 lnL; gSa ftu ij dksbZ fookn
fdlh izdkj dk izrhr ugha gksrk A buesa pUnz/kj feJk Loa;
mudh iRuh] mudk ,d yMdk v'ouh dqekj ,od mldh
iRuh o mlds nks cPps] izkFkhZ dk nwljk iq=k vjfcUn dqekj
mldh iRuh ,oa mlds nks cPps dqy nl lnL; crk;s x;s gSa
A &&&&

&&&

&&& iwoZ foospuk ls HkyhHkkWfr Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZx.k tks
xaxkjke ds okfjlku ds #Ik esa fdjk;snkj gSa] esa ls foi{kh la0
] 4 o 8 vyx vyx vkoklksa esa jg jgs gSa A vihykFkhZx.k
ds izFke lsV esa lkfo=kh nsoh] ujs'k dqekj o ukjh fla/kkuh
crk;s x;s gSa A ukjh fla/kkuh dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS A fOnrh;
lsV esa jes'k mldh iRuh vk'kk nsoh mlds nks yMds] r`rh;
lsV esa izdk'k] mldh iRuh ,oa mldk ,d yMdk crk;k x;k
gS A iwoZ foospuk ds vuqlkj ;g izdk'k ;kfpdk esa foi{kh
la0 8 gS] tks fookfnr edku ls vyx jgrk gS A bl laca/k
esa dkxt ua0 56@2 mlds uke dk VsyhQksu fcy edku
ua0 106@27 xkW/khuxj dkuiqj dk fnf[ky gS A vr% bl
laca/k esa vihykFkhZx.k ds fo#) igys gh foospuk dh tk
pqdh gS] ftldk mUgsa ykHk ugha feyrk A pkSFks lsV esa gjh'k
dqekj fl/kkuh ,oa mlds iRuh dks crk;k x;k gS A ;gkW ;g
mYys[k djuk Hkh mfpr gS fd ujs'k dqekj fla/kkuh ,oa ukjh
fla/kkuh vfookfgr gSa mudh mez dkQh gS A ukjh dh e`R;q gks
pqdh gS jes'k dqedkj ,oa gjh'k dqekj Hkh O;Ld gSa A vr%
og viuh ekW Jherh lkfo=kh nsoh tks Loa; 70 o"kZ ls
vf/kd dh gS ij fdrus ij fuHkZj gksaxs] bldk vanktk
vklkuh ls yxk;k tk ldrk gS A &&& vr% rqyUkkRed
ijs'kkuh dk tgkW rd iz'u gS og izkFkhZ@ jsLikUMsUV ua0 1 ds
gh Ik{k esa izrhr gksrk gS A"

16. Thus, it is evident that the
Prescribed Authority as well as the
appellate Court have recorded concurrent
findings of fact, which are neither
perverse nor irrational. The Courts below
have considered each and every aspect of
the
case
while
releasing
the
accommodation, in dispute, in favour of
the respondent-landlord.

17. Relying upon its earlier decision
in Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chander Rai
and others -(2003) 6 SCC-675, Hon'ble
the Apex Court has held in Ranjeet Singh
v. Ravi Prakash- 2004(1) ARC-613 that:-

"... to be amenable to correction in
certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed
by the Court or Authority on whose
judgment the High Court was exercising
jurisdiction, should be an error which is
self evident. An error which needs to be
established by lengthy and complicated
arguments or by indulging into a longdrawn 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
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution also,
it has been held in Surya Dev Rai (supra)
that the jurisdiction was not available to
be exercised for indulging into reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or
correcting
the
errors
in
drawing
inferences like a Court of appeal. The
High Court has itself recorded in its
judgment that ''considering the evidence
on the record carefully' it was inclined not
to sustain the judgment of the Appellate
Court. On its own showing, the High
Court has acted like an appellate Court
which was not permissible for it to do
under Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution."

18. To the same effect is the
decision of this Court in Smt. Dharamati
and others V.Special Judge/Additional
District Judge, Ghaziabad and others1999(1) ARC-324, wherein it has been
held that findings on bonafide need
recorded by the Courts below cannot be
interfered
with
under
supervisory
jurisdiction of writ by High Court unless
found irrational or unreasonable.

19. There is yet another aspect of the
case. Even if it is assumed that the need of
the tenants is pressing, the fact cannot be
overlooked that the release application
was filed by the landlord way back in
1997. Almost a decade has passed by the
petitioners have made no effort to search
out alternate accommodation. Recently,
this Court in Salim Khan V. IVth Adl.
District Judge, Jhansi and others-
2006(1) ARC-588 relying upon the
decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Bhutada V. G.R. Mundada- A.I.R. 2003
SC-2713 held that the fact that tenants did
not show what efforts they made to search
alternate accommodation after filing of
release application was sufficient to tilt
the balance of hardship against them.

20. The concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the Court below do not suffer
from any illegality or infirmity requiring
interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.

21. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition fails and is dismissed. The
petitioners
shall
vacate
the
accommodation, in dispute, within two
months from today, failing which, they
shall be evicted from the accommodation,
in dispute, by coercive process, in
accordance with law with the aid of local
Police. No order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54684 of 2005

Ayodhya Rai and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri M.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.P. Singh
Sri N. Misra
C.S.C.

(A)
U.P.
Primary
Agriculture
Credit
Cooperative Societies Centralized Service
Regulations-1976-Regulation
59
(f)
suspension of secretary working with
Primary
Societies-order
passed
by
District
Magistrate
working
as
Administrator-whether the suspension