[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Sh. Sachin & Another ......Petitioners vs Sh. Sagar & Others on 27 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1430
Judgment Pronounced on:27.02.2026
Judgment Reserved on:30.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.2668 of 2012
Sh. Sachin & Another ......Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Sagar & Others .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. V. K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram
Sharma and Ms. Zeba Naaz, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Davesh Ghildiyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated
14.12.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Rent
Control Appeal No. 81 of 2012, whereby the appellate court interfered
with and set aside the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the Prescribed
Authority, Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 21 of 2008 under the provisions
of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners seek judicial scrutiny
of the appellate order reversing the release of accommodation earlier
granted in their favour by the Prescribed Authority.
1
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1430
3. The dispute in the present case pertains to a residential accommodation
bearing property No. 11-A, also known as 11/2, situated at
Chukkuwala, Dehradun, which is owned by the petitioners. The said
accommodation was originally under the tenancy of Smt. Durga Devi.
4. Smt. Durga Devi expired on 27.03.2008 leaving behind her legal heirs.
After her death, the petitioners instituted a release application under
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 seeking release of the
accommodation on the ground of their personal requirement. The said
proceedings were registered as P.A. Case No. 21 of 2008 before the
Prescribed Authority, Dehradun.
5. During the pendency of the release proceedings, respondent no. 1
moved an application claiming himself to be the adopted son of the
deceased tenant. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 25.03.2009,
impleaded him as a party in the proceedings. It is also borne from the
record that during the pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was
entered into through the grandmother of respondent no. 1 regarding
vacation of the premises, however, the proceedings continued thereafter
before the Prescribed Authority.
6. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the material on record,
passed judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 allowing the release
application and directing release of the accommodation in favour of the
petitioners.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no. 1 preferred Rent Control
Appeal No. 81 of 2012 before the learned District Judge, Dehradun.
2
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1430
The appellate court, by judgment and order dated 14.12.2012, set aside
the order of the Prescribed Authority, which has led to the filing of the
present writ petition before this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Prescribed Authority, upon due appreciation of the evidence on record,
had rightly allowed the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of
the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, holding the bona fide need of the
petitioners established and comparative hardship in their favour. It was
contended that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in
interfering with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority.
10. It was further submitted that the appellate court travelled beyond
the scope of the appeal and virtually set up a new case, particularly on
the issue of vacancy and the status of the respondent. According to the
petitioners, the finding regarding vacancy is contrary to settled law and
ignores the distinction between actual and deemed vacancy.
11. Learned counsel also contended that upon the death of the
original tenant, tenancy rights could devolve only upon lawful heirs in
accordance with law, and the respondent could not claim any superior
right merely on the basis of alleged adoption. It was argued that the
Prescribed Authority had properly appreciated the material on record
and the appellate court erred in reversing the findings without cogent
basis.
3
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1430
12. It was further submitted that the appellate court failed to confine
itself to the statutory parameters governing release under Section
21(1)(a), particularly with respect to bona fide requirement and
comparative hardship, and the impugned order suffers from
jurisdictional error and perversity.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
appellate order and submitted that the Prescribed Authority had failed
to correctly appreciate the evidence and had erroneously recorded
findings regarding vacancy and entitlement. It was contended that the
appellate court, being the final court of fact, was fully empowered to
re-appreciate the evidence and correct such errors.
14. It was further argued that the appellate court considered the
material on record and arrived at its conclusions in accordance with
law, and no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The respondents submitted that supervisory
jurisdiction is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence
or substitution of findings merely because another view is possible, and
accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to examine the scope of
interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, particularly in the context of findings
recorded by the statutory authorities under the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
16. The present matter arises out of proceedings under Section
21(1)(a) of the Act, wherein the Prescribed Authority allowed the
4
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1430
release application filed by the petitioners, which was subsequently
reversed by the appellate court in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction.
The question that falls for consideration is whether the appellate court
acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and in accordance with law
while interfering with the findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority.
17. It is well settled that the appellate court, being the final court of
fact under the statutory scheme, is competent to re-appreciate the
evidence and examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the
Prescribed Authority. However, such power is required to be exercised
within the framework of the statute and upon due consideration of the
material available on record. The appellate court is obligated to record
reasons reflecting proper application of mind and to base its
conclusions on evidence and legal principles governing release
proceedings.
18. The petitioners have contended that the appellate court travelled
beyond the scope of the appeal, particularly on the issue of vacancy and
the status of the respondent, and improperly interfered with the findings
regarding bona fide requirement and comparative hardship. However, a
perusal of the impugned appellate order indicates that the appellate
court has examined these aspects within the framework of the appeal
and on the basis of the material available on record. The question of
vacancy, as considered by the appellate court, was examined in light of
the circumstances arising after the death of the original tenant, and the
conclusions drawn cannot be said to be based on no evidence or
irrelevant considerations. Likewise, the issue relating to the status and
entitlement of the respondent was assessed by the appellate court only
5
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1430
to the extent necessary for determining the rights flowing from the
tenancy, and such consideration does not amount to travelling beyond
jurisdiction.
19. It further transpires that the appellate court, while reversing the
order of the Prescribed Authority, has undertaken an independent
evaluation of the material relating to bona fide requirement and
comparative hardship. The appellate court, being the final court of fact
under the statutory scheme, was competent to re-appreciate the
evidence and arrive at its own conclusions. The reversal of findings by
itself does not render the order perverse unless it is demonstrated that
the conclusions are wholly unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or
based on misapplication of law. From the record, it does not appear that
the findings of the appellate court suffer from such infirmity.
20. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is confined to ensuring that courts and tribunals
act within the bounds of their authority and in accordance with law.
Interference is warranted only in cases of patent illegality, jurisdictional
error, violation of principles of natural justice, or findings so perverse
that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusions. A
mere possibility of a different view, or a preference for the reasoning
adopted by the Prescribed Authority, cannot be a ground for
interference in exercise of such limited jurisdiction.
21. In the present case, the appellate court cannot be said to have
exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, nor does the impugned order
disclose any manifest procedural irregularity or patent illegality. The
6
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1430
findings recorded by the appellate court are based on consideration of
the material available on record and reflect an independent application
of mind to the issues involved. Even if another view may be possible
on the same material, the view taken by the appellate court being a
plausible one, this Court would not substitute its own opinion in
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, no case for
interference is made out.
ORDER
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 81 of 2012 does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:27/02/2026 NR/ 7 WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2668 of 2012-----Sachin and Another vs Sagar and others Ashish Naithani J.