Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8607 (UTT)

Nandan Singh v. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal

2026-01-03

Ashish Naithani

body2026
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. 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 is a tenant in occupation of the premises for several decades and that the shop in question constitutes his sole source of livelihood. Learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner had specifically pleaded and established comparative hardship by demonstrating that eviction would deprive him of his only means of subsistence, whereas the Respondent was possessed of alternative vacant premises, including shops adjacent to the disputed premises, which could have been conveniently utilized. According to the Petitioner, this crucial aspect of comparative hardship has been either cursorily dealt with or completely ignored by the courts below. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also assailed the findings relating to ownership and entitlement of the Respondent, submitting that the property in question was originally Nazul land and that the alleged transfer and subsequent freehold conversion in favour of the Respondent were not proved in accordance with law. It was urged that these foundational issues directly impacted the Respondent’s locus to seek release of the premises and that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court failed to examine the legality and evidentiary worth of the documents relied upon by the Respondent. 9. Further submission was made that during the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner sought to bring additional documents on record, which were necessary for a just and effective adjudication of the controversy; however, the Appellate Court rejected the application for additional evidence without assigning cogent reasons. 9. Further submission was made that during the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner sought to bring additional documents on record, which were necessary for a just and effective adjudication of the controversy; however, the Appellate Court rejected the application for additional evidence without assigning cogent reasons. It was contended that such rejection has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioner and has rendered the appellate proceedings illusory. On these grounds, it was argued that the impugned orders suffer from perversity and jurisdictional error, thereby calling for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the scope of interference under Article 227 is extremely limited and does not permit re- appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings merely because another view is possible. 11. It was contended that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings of fact in favour of the Respondent after appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, and such concurrent findings do not warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction. 12. It was further submitted that the Respondent successfully established his bona fide requirement for the premises and that the need pleaded was neither artificial nor pretextual. Learned counsel argued that the mere assertion by the Petitioner regarding availability of alternative accommodation does not ipso facto dislodge the Respondent’s bona fide need, particularly when the courts below, upon appreciation of evidence, found the said plea to be unsubstantiated. 13. With regard to comparative hardship, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the authorities below have duly considered the relative hardship of both parties and have rightly concluded that the balance tilts in favour of the Respondent. It was argued that long possession by itself does not create an indefeasible right in favour of the tenant, and once bona fide need is established, eviction cannot be resisted solely on the ground of duration of tenancy. 14. Learned counsel further contended that the objections relating to title and nature of land are wholly misconceived in rent control proceedings, wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant is determinative and not the absolute title. It was submitted that the Petitioner, having admitted the tenancy, is estopped from disputing the Respondent’s title. 14. Learned counsel further contended that the objections relating to title and nature of land are wholly misconceived in rent control proceedings, wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant is determinative and not the absolute title. It was submitted that the Petitioner, having admitted the tenancy, is estopped from disputing the Respondent’s title. It was therefore urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate courts have acted in excess of jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, or where the findings recorded are so perverse or unreasonable that no prudent person could have arrived at such conclusions on the basis of the material on record. 16. The proceedings in question arise out of a release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, wherein the primary considerations before the Prescribed Authority are the existence of bona fide need of the landlord and the comparative hardship between the parties. The record reveals that both the authorities below have adverted to these twin requirements and have returned concurrent findings in favour of the Respondent-landlord. 17. So far as the issue of bona fide need is concerned, this Court finds that the Prescribed Authority examined the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and recorded a categorical finding that the Respondent had established a genuine requirement for the premises in question. The Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the material, concurred with the said finding. Mere assertion by the Petitioner that the Respondent possessed other properties or that adjacent shops were available does not, by itself, dislodge the finding of bona fide need, particularly when the courts below found such pleas to be unsupported by reliable evidence. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and the tenant cannot dictate as to how or where such need should be satisfied. 18. On the question of comparative hardship, this Court notes that the Petitioner placed reliance on the long duration of tenancy and the plea that the premises in question constituted his sole source of livelihood. 18. On the question of comparative hardship, this Court notes that the Petitioner placed reliance on the long duration of tenancy and the plea that the premises in question constituted his sole source of livelihood. While such considerations are undoubtedly relevant, the same do not operate in isolation. The authorities below have taken into account the relative hardship of both parties and have recorded a finding that greater hardship would be caused to the Respondent if the release were denied. 19. This Court does not find that such conclusion is arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. Long continuance of tenancy, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right in favour of the tenant once the statutory grounds for release are established. 20. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the alleged defects in title and the nature of the land being Nazul land has also been considered. This Court is of the view that rent control proceedings are not the appropriate forum for adjudication of complex questions relating to absolute title. What is material in such proceedings is the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, which the Petitioner does not seriously dispute. A tenant, having acknowledged the relationship of tenancy, is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord in collateral proceedings of this nature. The courts below, therefore, cannot be faulted for declining to embark upon a detailed inquiry into title issues beyond the scope of the rent control jurisdiction. 21. With regard to the grievance relating to rejection of the application for additional evidence at the appellate stage, this Court finds that the Appellate Court exercised its discretion in declining the said request. The power to admit additional evidence is not to be exercised routinely and is circumscribed by well-settled principles. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the documents sought to be produced could not have been filed earlier despite due diligence or that their exclusion has resulted in manifest injustice. In the absence of such a showing, the rejection of the application cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. 22. This Court further finds that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Court are reasoned, based on appreciation of evidence, and do not disclose any perversity or patent illegality. In the absence of such a showing, the rejection of the application cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. 22. This Court further finds that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Court are reasoned, based on appreciation of evidence, and do not disclose any perversity or patent illegality. The attempt of the Petitioner, in essence, is to seek a reappreciation of evidence and substitution of concurrent findings, which is impermissible in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. ORDER: In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed No order as to costs.