Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ASHISH NAITHANI
Mahesh Chandra Shah – Appellant
Versus
Harish Chandra Joshi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. landlord's release application allowed below; reversed on appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. article 227 supervisory; limited to perversity or jurisdictional error. (Para 4 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. appellate court exceeded jurisdiction reappreciating bona fide need evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner's need doubted; tenant hardship from long tenancy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. landlord best judge of retail business location needs. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. need assessed at filing; alternatives not conjectural. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. comparative hardship mandatory; tenant proved no search efforts. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 8. appellate findings perverse; warrants article 227 interference. (Para 24 , 25) |
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
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 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....
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 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....
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.
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.
Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant - It is well settled that power under Article 227/226 is of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts....
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 landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The availability of other vacant shops, as pleaded by the ten....
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
