Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri S.C. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

2. Petitioners' father filed an application for release of accommodation in question i.e. Hosue No. 13/39 situated in Bara Bazar, Aligarh on the ground of personal need under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). Prescribed Authority allowed the application vide judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 but the same has been reversed by Appellate Court in respondent-tenant's appeal no. 6 of 2000 decided vide judgment dated 22.1.2002.

3. While reversing the findings on the question of personal need whether genuine or bona fide and taking an otherwise view, Appellate Court has said as under:

@ Hindi @

"Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta has been impleaded as Applicant no. 4. Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta has not filed any affidavit of his own before the court in respect of bona fide need of the building in question. As regards Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, the respondent has stated in para 16 of his affidavit 33-C that Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta is a lecturer at H.B. Inter College and he looks after his electrical shop after being free from there. In rebuttal of the aforesaid fact, Smt. Kiran Kanta has on behalf of the building owner filed an affidavit as an annexure to her affidavit mentioning therein that Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta is not serving any post at H.B. Inter College. The aforesaid certificate is dated 16.10.97. Release application was filed in the year 1995 and the need of building shall be evaluated on the basis of circumstances subsisting at the time of filing of application. It is nowhere mentioned in the affidavit 33-C that Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta was never posted at H.B. Inter College. Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta might have been posted at H.B. Inter College when the application for release of building was filed and that on 16.10.97 Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta might not have been posted at H.B. Inter College. Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta has himself not filed any affidavit whatsoever contesting the fact that he was never posted at H.B. Inter College. The evidence available on record clearly says that Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta has a shop named Memon Electric Store in electrical goods' market "Bada Bazar". It has also come out that the respondent runs a printing press in the building in question. Evidence is also available to the effect that work the aforesaid printing press has been installed since a very old time and work of the aforesaid printing press has been with the respondent since the time of his father Phool Chand. As per provision of Rule 16 (2) of U.P.U.B. Act (Act 13 of 1972), there would be very little justification for passing an order releasing the tenanted shop if the tenant has been running his business in the said shop for a very long time." (English Translation by the Court)

4. In the entire writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner could not show any averment or any material to demonstrate that these findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous or contrary to record.

5. Once the very basis of filing application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act, 1972 is not substantiated and findings recorded by Appellate Court is not shown to be manifestly erroneous, this Court would not be justified in interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction since it is not an appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this Court. 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.

6. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document