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-retirement and ignoring mandatory comparative hardship favouring landlord. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed to quash the judgment and order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora in Rent Control Appeal No.04 of 2020, titled as “Harish Chandra vs. Mahesh Chandra Shah”, whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent-tenant under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been allowed, and the judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority releasing the shop in question in favour of the Petitioner-landlord has been set aside, and to consequently dismiss the Appeal No.4 of 2020 filed by the Respondent-tenant.

2. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. The Petitioner is the owner of a shop forming part of “Devi Buildings”, L.R. Shah Road, near Milan Chowk, Almora, which is situated on the ground floor in the main market area. The Respondent is a tenant therein at a monthly rent of ₹ 1,750/-.

3. The Petitioner, after his retirement, instituted a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act pleading a bona fide, genuine and pressing need to establish a garment business at his native place, Almora, for sustaining himself and his family.

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

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora suffers from manifest jurisdictional error. It was contended that the Appellate Court exceeded the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority.

6. It was argued that the Prescribed Authority had, on the basis of pleadings and evidence, recorded categorical findings that the Petitioner had a bona fide, genuine and pressing need of the shop in question to establish a garment business after retirement, and that the balance of comparative hardship tilted in his favour. These findings, it was submitted, were neither perverse nor unsupported by the record and therefore could not have been interfered with in appeal.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court committed a serious error in holding that accommodation on the first floor could meet the Petitioner’s requirement. It was contended that the landlord is the best judge of his need and that a retail garment business necessarily requires a ground floor location in a market area, a reality which the Appellate Court failed to appreciate.

8. It was further urged that the Appellate Court ignored the statutory requirement of assessing comparative hardship. The Respondent had failed to lead any evidence of efforts made to search for alternative accommodation, whereas the Petitioner had established genuine hardship. Long duration of tenancy, it was submitted, cannot by itself defeat a bona fide need of the landlord.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was argued that the Appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction within the bounds of law and that the present petition is an attempt to seek rea