Appellate court in rent release proceedings may re-appreciate evidence as final fact-finder; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 permits no interference absent perversity, jurisdictional error or illegality.

JUDGMENT :

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 81 of 2012, whereby the appellate court interfered with and set aside the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 21 of 2008 under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners seek judicial scrutiny of the appellate order reversing the release of accommodation earlier granted in their favour by the Prescribed Authority.

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to a residential accommodation bearing property No. 11-A, also known as 11/2, situated at Chukkuwala, Dehradun, which is owned by the petitioners. The said accommodation was originally under the tenancy of Smt. Durga Devi.

4. Smt. Durga Devi expired on 27.03.2008 leaving behind her legal heirs. After her death, the petitioners instituted a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 seeking release of the accommodation on the ground of their personal requirement. The said proceedings were registered as P.A. Case No. 21 of 2008 before the Prescribed Authority, Dehradun.

5. During the pendency of the release proceedings, respondent no. 1 moved an application claiming himself to be the adopted son of the deceased tenant. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 25.03.2009, impleaded him as a party in the proceedings. It is also borne from the record that during the pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was entered into through the grandmother of respondent no. 1 regarding vacation of the premises, however, the proceedings continued thereafter before the Prescribed Authority.

6. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the material on record, passed judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 allowing the release application and directing release of the accommodation in favour of the petitioners.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no. 1 preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 81 of 2012 before the learned District Judge, Dehradun. The appellate court, by judgment and order dated 14.12.2012, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition before this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Prescribed Authority, upon due appreciation of the evidence on record, had rightly allowed the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, holding the bona fide need of the petitioners established and comparative hardship in their favour. It was contended that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority.

10. It was further submitted that the appellate court travelled beyond the scope of the appeal and virtually set up a new case, particularly on the issue of vacancy and the status of the respondent. According to the petitioners, the finding regarding vacancy is contrary to settled law and ignores the distinction between actual and deemed vacancy.

11. Learned counsel also contended that upon the death of the original tenant, tenancy rights could devolve only upon lawful heirs in accordance with law, and the respondent could not claim any superior right merely on the basis of alleged adoption. It was argued that the Prescribed Authority had properly appreciated the material on record and the app