Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ashish Naithani, J.
Birendra Prasad Badoni - Petitioner
Versus
Atul Bhatt and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, learned counsel

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 jurisdictional excess. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Rent control - Release application for bona fide residential need - Prescribed Authority allowed release after finding genuine need of aged widowed landlord and comparative hardship in his favour - Appellate court set aside by re-appreciating evidence, questioning need despite no other suitable accommodation, and treating ancestral property allotted to nephew as alternative - High Court held appellate court exceeded jurisdiction by substituting its view for non-perverse findings of Prescribed Authority, as landlord best judge of requirement and tenants made no effort for alternative despite long occupation. (Paras 17-23)

(B) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 - Interference warranted if subordinate court exceeds jurisdiction, fails to exercise it, or decision perverse/illegal - Appellate court cannot re-appreciate facts or dictate landlord's accommodation choice. (Paras 17,19,20)

(C) Comparative hardship - Denial causes greater hardship to landlord; long tenancy alone insufficient without tenants' efforts for alternative. (Paras 14,21)

Facts of the case:
Octogenarian retired widowed landlord filed release application for ancestral residential house occupied by tenants for six decades, claiming no other suitable accommodation as another ancestral house allotted to nephew under family arrangement. Prescribed Authority allowed, appellate court reversed holding no bona fide need and alternative available, challenged under Article 227.

Findings of Court:
Appellate order set aside for jurisdictional overreach; Prescribed Authority order restored directing tenants to vacate within three months subject to undertaking.

Issues: Whether appellate court exceeded jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence, substituting view on bona fide need and comparative hardship, and considering unavailable alternative accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings on bona fide need and hardship by Prescribed Authority not perverse; appellate scrutiny limited to legality/perversity, not re-assessment; landlord judges own needs, unavailable family-allotted property not alternative.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

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 the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

2. The Petitioner seeks restoration of the order of the Prescribed Authority, contending that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction, re- appreciated evidence in a manner impermissible in rent control proceedings, and substituted its own subjective view in place of well- reasoned findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship.

3. The Petitioner is the landlord of a residential house situated at Ward No. 4, Upper Bazar, Pauri Garhwal, recorded as House No. 177 (New No. 196) in the municipal records. The property is ancestral in nature and has been in the possession of the tenants’ family for nearly six decades.

4. The Petitioner retired from service in 1992 and was residing in Mumbai. After the death of his wife in 2016, and considering his advancing age, health requirements, and social roots in Pauri Garhwal, the Petitioner decided to permanently settle in the suit premises.

5. A release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 was filed on the ground of bona fide residential need. It was specifically pleaded that the Petitioner had no other reasonably suitable accommodation available for his residence, as another ancestral house had been allotted to his nephew under a family arrangement for livelihood and residence.

6. The respondents-tenants contested the release application, disputing the Petitioner’s bona fide need and raising pleas relating to alleged maintenance of the Petitioner’s mother, repairs carried out by them, availability of alternate accommodation, and comparative hardship.

7. Upon consideration of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and settled legal principles, the Prescribed Authority, by order dated 03.12.2018, allowed the release application, recording categorical findings in favour of the Petitioner on both bona fide need and comparative hardship, and directed eviction of the tenants.

8. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2019, which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge on 30.11.2021, setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and rejecting the release application, primarily on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to establish bona fide need and that alternative accommodation was available.It is this appellate order dated 30.11.2021 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

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

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appellate court, while passing the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2021, exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view for the reasoned findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972.

11. It was contended th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document