UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON MAHESH CHANDRA SHAH V/S HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI

NAINITAL, India, March 12 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 10:

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed to quash the judgment and order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora in Rent Control Appeal No.04 of 2020, titled as "Harish Chandra vs. Mahesh Chandra Shah", whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent-tenant under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been allowed, and the judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority releasing the shop in question in favour of the Petitioner-landlord has been set aside, and to consequently dismiss the Appeal No.4 of 2020 filed by the Respondent-tenant.

2. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. The Petitioner is the owner of a shop forming part of "Devi Buildings", L.R. Shah Road, near Milan Chowk, Almora, which is situated on the ground floor in the main market area. The Respondent is a tenant therein at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,750/-.

3. The Petitioner, after his retirement, instituted a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act pleading a bona fide, genuine and pressing need to establish a garment business at his native place, Almora, for sustaining himself and his family.

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

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora suffers from manifest jurisdictional error. It was contended that the Appellate Court exceeded the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the wellreasoned findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority.

6. It was argued that the Prescribed Authority had, on the basis of pleadings and evidence, recorded categorical findings that the Petitioner had a bona fide, genuine and pressing need of the shop in question to establish a garment business after retirement, and that the balance of comparative hardship tilted in his favour. These findings, it was submitted, were neither perverse nor unsupported by the record and therefore could not have been interfered with in appeal.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoOpfQQVbeimaAwlmMG3cWabOnlaTN%2BllUGUf050n%2BqkQ&caseno=WPMS/2109/2021&cCode=1&cino=UKHC010123292021&state_code=15&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.