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.

JUDGMENT :

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner, who is a long-standing tenant of the premises in question, assailing the judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 2018, as well as the judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar in Rent Control Case No. 02 of 2017. By the impugned orders, the authorities below allowed the release application filed by the Respondent-landlord and directed eviction of the Petitioner from the tenanted premises.

2. The Petitioner claims to be a tenant of the shop/premises in dispute for several decades, stating that his family has been in continuous occupation of the premises for nearly seventy years and that the said shop constitutes his sole source of livelihood. The Respondent instituted Rent Control Case No. 02 of 2017 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement, asserting himself to be the owner and landlord of the property.

3. By judgment and order dated 27.11.2018, the learned Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 2018. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner sought to bring additional documents on record; however, the said application was rejected by the appellate court by order dated 30.05.2019. Ultimately, the appeal itself came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 14.12.2020, affirming the order of eviction.

4. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court earlier by challenging the order dated 30.05.2019, and subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, both of which were dismissed, though the Hon’ble Supreme Court left certain questions of law open for consideration in an appropriate case. It is in this backdrop that the present writ petition has been filed, challenging the final orders passed by the courts below on the grounds of jurisdictional error, non-consideration of relevant facts, and misapplication of settled legal principles governing rent control proceedings.

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

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court are vitiated by non-consideration of material facts and settled principles governing release applications under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was contended that the courts below mechanically accepted the plea of bona fide need raised by the Respondent without examining whether such need was genuine, pressing, and incapable of being satisfied from other available accommodations admittedly owned and possessed by the Respondent.

7. It was further argued that the Petitioner