[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt And Others on 18 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1098
Judgment Reserved on: 17.12.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 18.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022
Birendra Prasad Badoni ......Petitioner
Versus
Atul Bhatt and Others .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, learned counsel for the Respondents through video
conferencing.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the Petitioner, an octogenarian landlord aged about
88 years, assailing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the
learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2019,
"Atul Bhatt and Others vs. Birendra Prasad Badoni", whereby the
Appellate Court set aside the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the
Prescribed Authority and rejected the release application filed by the
Petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
2. The Petitioner seeks restoration of the order of the Prescribed
Authority, contending that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction, re-
appreciated evidence in a manner impermissible in rent control
proceedings, and substituted its own subjective view in place of well-
reasoned findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship.
1
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022-----Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1098
3. The Petitioner is the landlord of a residential house situated at
Ward No. 4, Upper Bazar, Pauri Garhwal, recorded as House No. 177
(New No. 196) in the municipal records. The property is ancestral in
nature and has been in the possession of the tenants' family for nearly six
decades.
4. The Petitioner retired from service in 1992 and was residing in
Mumbai. After the death of his wife in 2016, and considering his
advancing age, health requirements, and social roots in Pauri Garhwal, the
Petitioner decided to permanently settle in the suit premises.
5. A release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 was
filed on the ground of bona fide residential need. It was specifically
pleaded that the Petitioner had no other reasonably suitable
accommodation available for his residence, as another ancestral house had
been allotted to his nephew under a family arrangement for livelihood and
residence.
6. The respondents-tenants contested the release application,
disputing the Petitioner's bona fide need and raising pleas relating to
alleged maintenance of the Petitioner's mother, repairs carried out by
them, availability of alternate accommodation, and comparative hardship.
7. Upon consideration of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence,
and settled legal principles, the Prescribed Authority, by order dated
03.12.2018, allowed the release application, recording categorical findings
in favour of the Petitioner on both bona fide need and comparative
hardship, and directed eviction of the tenants.
8. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred Rent Appeal No. 01 of
2019, which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge on
30.11.2021, setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and
rejecting the release application, primarily on the ground that the
2
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022-----Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1098
Petitioner had failed to establish bona fide need and that alternative
accommodation was available.It is this appellate order dated 30.11.2021
which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appellate
court, while passing the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2021, exceeded
its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view
for the reasoned findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority under
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972.
11. It was contended that the Prescribed Authority had returned clear
findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship, which were neither
perverse nor illegal, and therefore could not have been interfered with in
appeal.
12. Learned counsel argued that the appellate court committed a
manifest error in questioning the genuineness of the Petitioner's
residential need, despite the undisputed facts that the Petitioner is an aged,
widowed, and retired person seeking to permanently settle at his native
place.
13. It was further submitted that the appellate court acted beyond
jurisdiction in dictating the choice of accommodation to the landlord by
relying upon an ancestral property allotted to a nephew under a family
arrangement, which was neither vacant nor legally available to the
Petitioner.
14. On comparative hardship, it was urged that the appellate court
ignored the finding that the respondents, despite long tenancy, made no
effort to seek alternative accommodation, whereas denial of eviction
would cause grave hardship to the Petitioner.
3
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022-----Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1098
15. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the
impugned appellate order and submitted that the Petitioner failed to
establish a genuine bona fide need, as alternative accommodation was
available.
16. It was argued that the respondents would suffer greater
comparative hardship in the event of eviction and that the appellate court
committed no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article
227 of the Constitution.
17. At the outset, it requires emphasis that the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in
nature. Interference is warranted where the subordinate court has acted in
excess of jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or where
the decision suffers from manifest perversity or patent illegality. At the
same time, where the appellate court itself travels beyond the statutory
limits governing its jurisdiction, supervisory correction becomes not only
permissible but necessary.
18. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority, while allowing the
release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972, undertook a
detailed examination of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and
the settled legal position governing bona fide need and comparative
hardship. Specific findings were recorded that the Petitioner, an aged and
widowed person, had a genuine residential requirement and that denial of
release would cause greater hardship to him than to the tenants.
19. The appellate court, however, did not demonstrate that these
findings were either perverse or unsupported by evidence. Instead, it
proceeded to re-appreciate the factual matrix, reassess the suitability of
accommodation, and substitute its own view regarding how and where the
4
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022-----Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1098
landlord ought to reside. Such an exercise travels beyond the permissible
scope of appellate scrutiny under the Act.
20. The law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his
residential requirement, and neither the tenant nor the court can compel
him to adjust in an accommodation which, according to him, is unsuitable.
The appellate court erred in treating an ancestral property allotted to a
nephew under a family arrangement as an available alternative
accommodation, despite there being no finding that such accommodation
was vacant or legally available to the Petitioner.
21. Equally untenable is the approach adopted by the appellate court
on the issue of comparative hardship. The Prescribed Authority had
categorically recorded that the respondents-tenants, despite occupying the
premises for several decades, had made no discernible effort to secure
alternative accommodation. This material finding was neither reversed on
cogent reasoning nor displaced by evidence. Instead, the appellate court
relied upon extraneous considerations which are not determinative of
hardship under Section 21(1)(a).
22. The appellate court also failed to accord due weight to the
advanced age and personal circumstances of the Petitioner, which were
central to the assessment of bona fide need. The impugned judgment
reflects a subjective reassessment of facts rather than a judicial scrutiny of
legality or perversity in the order of the Prescribed Authority.
23. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the
impugned appellate judgment dated 30.11.2021 suffers from jurisdictional
overreach and misapplication of settled principles, and cannot be
sustained. The Prescribed Authority's order dated 03.12.2018, having been
passed upon proper appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law,
warrants restoration.
5
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022-----Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1098
ORDER
The Writ Petition is allowed.
The judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2019 are set aside. The order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 01 of 2018, allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is restored. The respondents shall vacate the suit premises within three months from today, subject to filing an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within four weeks.
Ashish Naithani, J.
SHIKSHA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5 aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, SB BINJOLA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7 FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.02.18 17:28:00 +05'30' 6 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 157 of 2022-----Birendra Prasad Badoni vs Atul Bhatt and others Ashish Naithani J.