The High Court's powers under Articles 226 and 227 must be exercised within the limits of the law, and the court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred to as ’tenants’) against the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the appeal filed by the tenants against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by the father of the respondents No.2 to 7 Kanahaiya Lal on 02.06.1957. The landlord, Pankaj Jain, filed an eviction application against the original tenant Smt. Kamlesh Jain & Ors. in the year 2015. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Rent Tribunal, Smt. Kamlesh Jain died on 22.03.2018. The learned Rent Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed three issues, however, the suit was decreed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 19.03.2020 only on the basis of issue No.2, which reads as under:-

^^2- vk;k ÁR;FkhZx.k us vius dk;Z O;kikj ds fy, mi;qDr mfpr i;kZIr ifjlj vftZr dj fy;k gS] bl vk/kkj ij fookfnr ifjlj jax lq[k [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ---vthZnkj^^

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2020, the tenants filed regular appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Alwar which was dismissed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 16.05.2022. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar.

4. Counsel for the tenants submits that the finding given by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal on issue No.2 is perverse and the same has been recorded on wrong consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties. Counsel further submits that the original tenant has purchased the alternative accommodation in the year 1974, however, the said premises is residential and not suitable for commercial purposes. Counsel further submits that the landlord failed to file the suit immediately after purchasing the alternative accommodation of the property by the tenant. Counsel further submits that the alternative accommodation acquired by the tenant is used by his seven sons and their families for residential purpose and not suitable for doing the business. Counsel further prayed for allowing the present writ petition.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord submits that the learned Rent Tribunal as well as the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the tenants and recorded the finding of fact that the acquired property by the tenants is residential-cum-commercial upon which, the shops are situated which are used for doing the business by the family members of the original tenant, including present tenant himself. Counsel further submits that the tenants have enjoyed the property in dispute for more than 65 years and the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below not required to be interfered by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel further submits that this Court cannot act as an Appellate Court to appreciate the evidence again at this stage.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in 2008 (9) Supreme Court Cases 1 in which in para No.38 it has been held as under:-

38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Trib