Judgement Pronounced on:12.12.2025 Judgement Reserved on: 03.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557 of 2024 Smt. Sunita Sah & others ......Petitioners Versus Sri Anup Singh Sahi …..Respondent Presence For the Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel For the Respondent: Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned counsel Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The Petitioners, who are the landlords of shop no. 74, Agra Misthan Bhandar, situated in Bara Bazar, Mallital, Nainital, have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2023. By the impugned judgment, the appellate court set aside the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 04 of 2021, whereby the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had been allowed.

2. The appellate court reversed the decree solely on the ground that the Act itself was inapplicable as the contractual rent of the premises was allegedly beyond the statutory threshold, thereby holding that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction.

3. The respondent is a long-standing tenant running a sweets shop under the name “Agra Misthan Bhandar.” The landlords filed a release application on 10.02.2021, asserting bona fide need to establish their two unemployed sons in business and stating that no other suitable commercial accommodation was available to them.

4. In response, the tenant denied the applicability of the Act and alleged that the landlords wanted to increase the rent from ₹ 2,500 to ₹ 20,000 per month. Relying solely on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000, he claimed that the contractual rent was ₹ 2,500 per month. Still, he produced no rent deed, rent receipt, or consistent record of payment to substantiate this claim or to establish any statutory exemption.

5. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant had failed to prove the alleged rent and that the solitary bank transfer could not be treated as proof of a contractual rate. It noted the complete absence of documentary material supporting the tenant’s stand and accepted the municipal assessment records filed by the landlady. It therefore held that the tenant had not discharged the burden of showing that the Act was inapplicable and, on evaluating the remaining evidence, recorded findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlords.

6. The appellate court, however, allowed the tenant’s appeal solely on the ground that the Act did not apply, holding that the landlords had failed to prove the rate of rent. While acknowledging that the tenant’s evidence was “not final,” it nevertheless accepted it as sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court failed to consider that the burden of proving exemption lay on the tenant, ignored the municipal records produced by the landlords, and did not examine the detailed findings on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship.

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

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the appellate court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Prescribed Authority solely on the issue of applicability of the Act. It was argued that the landlords had clearly pleaded that the Act applied, whereas the tenant failed to plead or prove any foundational facts to show that the contractual rent was above the statutory threshold. The tenant relied only on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000 without any proof that it represented rent. Counsel submitted that the burden to establish exemption from the Act lay on the tenant, who asserted such exemption, and that the appellate court wrongly shifted this burden onto the landl