ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus SITA RAM

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 19-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SITA RAM 
APRIL 19, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Rent and Eviction: 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 21 (l)(a), Proviso-Eviction petition bona fide C 
need-Hardship likely to be caused to tenant in allowing the petition for 
eviction as against hardship likely to be caused to landlord in disallowing 
the same-Question of-Held, this question can appropriately be considered 
by the Authority upon conclusion that the plea of bona fide requirement 
taken by landlord is found to be acceptable-In case the Authority comes to 
the conclusion that the case ofbona fide requirement pleaded by the Iandlor(i D 
is not believable and acceptable, considering the question of comparative 
hardship does not arise-In the present case, non-consideration of such 
question cannot be found fault with as Appellate Authority recorded that 
landlord had no bona fide need for the shop in question- Held, the said ordel· 
did not suffer from any serious illegality-High Court erred in interfering with E 
the order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held, finding of facts 
recorded by final court of fact should not ordinarily be inte1fered with by F 
High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the High Court is satisfied 
that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse-
High Court merely having supervisory jurisdiction and not acting as anothe11 
Appellate Court. 
Respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of appellant-tenants G 
from the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Eviction was 
sought on ground that respondent-landlord was in bona fide need of the shop· 
for establishing his son in business. Prescribed Authority allowed the petition' 
and ordered eviction of appellants. Order was also made for payment of an: H 
101 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A amount equivalent to two years rental as compensation for indentifying 
appellants for inconvenience faced by them in shifting their business. 
A1>pellants preferred an appeal against the ord~r of eviction passed against 
them. Res1>0ndent also filed an appeal assailing the order for payment of two 
years rental to appellants. Appellate Authority allowerl the appeal filed by 
B appelJant-tenants and dismisse~ the one filed by respondent-landlord. 
Aggrieved, respondent-landlord filed a writ petition before High Court which 
was allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant-tenants, it was contended that it was not open 
to the High Court to re-open the findings of fact recorded by Appellate 
C Authority in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; 
that the Appellate Authority had given cogent reasons for differing from the 
findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona .fide 
requirement of landlord and therefore, no interference by th<! High Court 
was warranted. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order passed by the Appellate Authority did not suffer 
from any serious illegality, nor can. it be said to have taken a view of the 
matter which no reasonable person "'as likely to take, In that view of the 
E matter there was no justification for the. Bigh Court' .to interfere w'ith the 
order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In a matter like.the 1>resent case 
where orders passed by the Statutory Authority vested with 1>ower to act 
quasi-judicially is challenged before the High Court, the role of the Court is 
supervisory and corrective. The Court is not acting as yet another Appellate 
Court in the matter. The position is too well settled to admit of any controversy 
F that the finding of fact recorded by the final Court of fact should not ordinarily 
be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless 
the Couii is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or 
is l>atently perverse. [108-D; 105-B] 
G 
2. On a fair reading of the proviso to Section 2l(l)(a} of the Uttar 
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972, it is clear that the legislative mandate is that the Prescr'Jbed Authority 
shall take. into account the hardship likely to be caused to the tenant in . 
allowing the petition for e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.