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 suitability despite alternatives.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the Petitioners, who are tenants of a shop situated at Jhanda Chowk, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, assailing the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

2. The dispute traces its origin to the filing of a release application by Respondents over the findings recorded by statutory authorities, nor does it substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the order impugned discloses patent perversity, manifest miscarriage of justice, jurisdictional error, or a failure to consider material evidence.

3. In the release application, Respondent No.1 asserted that the shop in question was originally let out to the predecessor of the Petitioners and that after the demise of the original tenant, the tenancy devolved upon the Petitioners and the pro forma respondents. It was further pleaded that pursuant to a partition decree, the shop fell in the exclusive share of Respondent No.1.

4. Respondent No.1 pleaded that although he owns a hotel and certain other properties, the same are either old constructions, commercially unviable, or unsuitable for the proposed business. It was specifically pleaded that for running a furniture and interior business, a larger consolidated space was required and that the shop in question was essential for such purpose.

5. The Petitioners filed detailed objections to the release application, disputing the alleged bona fide need. They asserted that Respondent No.1 is in possession of multiple commercial properties, including a hotel building having several shops, open land near GMVN guest house, and other commercial spaces which are either vacant or recently let out, thereby negating any genuine necessity.

6. The Petitioners also pleaded that the son of Respondent No.1 is permanently settled abroad and has no intention of returning to India for carrying on any business, and that the release application was a mere pretext to evict the tenants.

7. Upon appreciation of evidence, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application. The appeal preferred by the Petitioners under Section 22 of the Act was dismissed by the appellate authority, affirming the findings regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An interim order was granted on 21.07.2022 protecting the Petitioners from dispossession, subject to deposit of use and occupation charges, which interim protection continued during the pendency of the writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners assailed the impugned orders with considerable emphasis and submitted that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority are vitiated by non- consideration of material evidence and by misapplication of the settled principles governing bona fide requirement.

10. It was argued that Respondent No.1 admittedly owns and controls several commercial properties, including a hotel building with multiple shops, open commercial land, and other business premises, some of which are either va