The court's interpretation of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and its application to the facts of the case.

J.C. Gupta, J.

1. Both these petitions have been filed by tenants and they arise out of a common judgment of the Appellate 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 accommodation 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 contemplated 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 defences being that the landlord has his ancestral 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 portion 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 comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. The Appellate Authority also thoroughly examined 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 control 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 committed 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 Counsel 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 indicated 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 holding 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.

3. 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