The court has the power and jurisdiction to correct errors in findings, and the finding on the question of comparison of hardship must be based on a clear examination of relevant factors.

J.C. Gupta, J.

(1) This is a review petition on behalf of the tenant.

(2) Tenant Inayat Elahi filed writ Petition No. 32389 of 1999 before this Court challenging the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority dated 8.9.1997 and 25.5.1999 respectively, whereby eviction of petitioner was ordered from the shop in question. After hearing parties counsel the said writ petition was dismissed in limine by the Court by the order dated 4.8.1999 and petitioner was al lowed six months period to vacate the premises on certain conditions. It further appears that instead of complying with the undertaking given before this Court, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No. 17376 of 1999 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition was decided by the Apex Court by the order dated 3.1.2000. The said order is reproduced below:-

"We have seen the affidavit filed by Shri Kabirul Haq, son-in-law of the petitioner who has said that the counsel for the petitioners pressed the points before the High Court and urged that the matter may be remanded to the Additional District Judge's Court, but the High Court decided the case without adverting to these submissions. If that is so, the petitioner is required to be relegated to the proceedings by way of review before the High Court. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition to enable him to file appropriate review proceedings. As the learned counsel has submitted before us that 'he stay granted by the High Court is expiring on 4.2.2000, further six weeks time is granted to enable the petitioner to get appropriate orders from the High Court. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the proposed review proceedings. In the meantime, status quo regarding possession shall be maintained. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

Consequently the petitioner has filed this review petition. It further appears that as review petition could not come up for hearing and the petitioner was apprehending eviction on the basis of release order, he filed a fresh writ petition No. 21343 of 2000 before this Court and the same has also been connected with the review petition.

(3) I have heard Sri S.A. Ansari learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramendra Asthana learned counsel for the respondents.

(4) Sri Ansari pressed the review petition mainly on four following grounds –

1. That the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Prescribed Authority which has greatly prejudiced the petitioner.

2. That the lower Appellate Authority was biased in as much as despite the fact that a transfer application had been moved against the learned Appellate Judge,, the Appellate Authority proceeded to pronounce the judgment.

3. That the finding on the question of bona fide need is perverse.

4. That the finding on the question of comparison of hardship is vitiated in law as the same is based only on the ground that the tenant has available with him two other alternative accommodations, therefore, he was not likely to suffer any hardship, without at all adverting to the question whether those accommodations were suitable for commercial purpose.

Sri Ramendra Asthana on the other hand argued that none of the grounds aforesaid could be a valid ground to review the order passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition in limine. It was further argued that the tenant-petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the Prescribed Authority and when he failed to produce the same, the Prescribed Authority had no option but to proceed with the case. It was also argued that in case the petitioner was really deprived of his right to adduce evidence, he could have produced the same before the Appellate Authority but that was also not done. Sri Ramendra Asthana further submitted that as far as second ground is concerned, the Appellate Authority had also given sufficient time to the appellant to make his submissions bu