Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ASHISH NAITHANI
Birendra Prasad Badoni – Appellant
Versus
Atul Bhatt – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. elderly landlord seeks release for bona fide residence; pa allowed, reversed on appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. article 227 jurisdiction corrects jurisdictional overreach. (Para 9 , 17) |
| 3. appellate court exceeded jurisdiction re-appreciating evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. no genuine need; tenants face greater hardship. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. appellate substituted views for pa findings improperly. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. landlord best judge of residential requirement. (Para 20) |
| 7. landlord hardship greater; tenants no alternate effort. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. appellate order set aside; pa order restored. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Ashish Naithani, J.
The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, an octogenarian landlord aged about 88 years, assailing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2019, “Atul Bhatt and Others vs. Birendra Prasad Badoni”, whereby the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority and rejected the release application filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of th
Appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view in rent release proceedings unless Prescribed Authority's findings perverse; supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 corrects juris....
High Court under Article 227 set aside appellate reversal of rent control eviction order, holding it perverse for reappreciating evidence on landlord's bona fide ground floor shop need post-retiremen....
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....
The bona fide need of a landlord to evict tenants for an adult family member's independent business cannot be denied based solely on tenant longevity; evidence of genuine necessity must be considered....
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship unless perverse.
Under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction limits interference with concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship unless perverse or jurisdictional error; landlord best judge of sui....
The court affirmed that the tenant's failure to contest the landlord's bona fide need led to an adverse inference, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227.
The appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding issues without remitting to the Prescribed Authority, violating procedural fairness in landlord-tenant disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
