Ram Sajiwan vs II Additional District Judge and Others

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. B.K. Narayan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents.

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the two orders dated 9th April, 1983 and 11th September, 1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Fatehpur and the II Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, respectively under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, here-in-after called the Act.

The proceedings which culminated into the impugned orders directing ejectment of the Petitioner, who is a tenant of the two disputed shops, were initiated at the behest of the Respondent no. 3 and the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents Nos. 4/1 to 4/7, the landlords, u/s 21 of the Act.

The Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority have concurrently found the need of the landlords to be bonafide. They have also recorded finding on the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlords. It cannot be disputed that once the need of the landlords is found to be bonafide and the finding on the question of comparative hardship is in favour of the landlords, the authorities would be well within their jurisdiction to allow the application u/s 21 of the Act. The findings on the issues of bonafide need and comparative hardship are primarily the findings of fact. For so long as these findings are not demonstrated to be perverse no interference there-with is permissible.

Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has very fairly conceded that there is some evidence on record to sustain the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and the Additional District Judge on the questions of bonafide need and comparative hardship and it is not a case of no evidence, He, however, contends that certain material escaped consideration and on consideration thereof the result may have been otherwise it is not necessary to examine this submission of Sri. Shashi Nandan in as much as consideration of the submission would necessarily involve reappraisal and reappreciation of the evidence which this Court is loath to do in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the foregoing reasons the Court is clearly of the opinion that the impugned orders are sound and do not suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court.

In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, there will be no order as to costs.