Point of Law: Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant - It is well settled that power under Article 227/226 is of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No.22 Kanpur Nagar dismissing the Rent Appeal No. 96 of 2011 and affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar dated 31.5.2011 passed in P.A. Case No. 6 of 2010 (Smt. Asha Gutpa Vs. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari), the tenant-petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

FACTS

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts as reflected from the record are that the shop in question at premises no. 53/7 (new no. 53/19) Nayaganj, Kanpur, is under the tenancy of the tenant-petitioner on rent of Rs. 1000 per month. The premises in question is old one and is covered by the provisions of U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent-landlord filed an application on 11.6.2010, before the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) of the Act setting-up the need of her son namely, Arpit Gupta, for doing on-line trading/share business from the tenement in question. The case was registered as P.A. Case No. 6 of 2010. It is stated in the release application that the husband of the landlady was running his business in a rented shop at premises no. 51/46 Nayaganj, Kanpur, who was being harassed by his landlord and besides it, her three sons namely Arpit Gupta, Arjit Gupta and Anubhav Gupta, were also in need of the disputed shop, more particularly, her son-Arpit Gupta was having the need for running the shop for on-line trading/share business and therefore, need of the landlord with regard to disputed tenement is bona fide and genuine. It is further stated that in the application the tenant-petitioner has unnecessarily held up the disputed shop and is not doing any business in the same.

4. The tenant-petitioner filed a written-statement disputing the need of the landlord by stating that the husband of the landlord-respondent was doing business from shop no. 51/46 along with his youngest son Anubhav Gupta at a very large scale in the name and style of M/s Anubhav Enterprises. Arpit Gupta, is also doing on-line share/trading business from Birhana Road, Kanpur, and Arjit Gupta, was residing with his in-laws at Hatiya and was also doing business. It is further stated by tenant-petitioner that the entire premises up to 4rth Floor was commercialized, the landlord-respondent had let out two shops on the ground floor after vacating the same by the tenant and as such they had the vacated shop in their possession, and the said shop could be used for establishing her son namely Arpit Gupta.

5. Parties in support of their respective cases exchanged the affidavits.

6. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 31.5.2011 allowed the release application of the landlord and directed the tenant-petitioner to vacate the tenement within three months.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, the tenant-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, registered as Rent Appeal No. 96 of 2011. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, the tenant-petitioner filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. bringing on record the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 10.9.2018 of Injunction Suit No. 1838 of 2018 and also filed another application for additional evidence bringing on record. GST R-No. 9 of financial year 2017-18 to prove that he is carrying business in the name and style of M/s Krishna Kumar & Company from the tenement in question.

8. The appellant authority vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2020, dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.5.2011, passed b