WPMS/3162/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3451 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.3162 of 2023
                                      Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, counsel for the petitioner.

2. Present Ms. Monika Pant, counsel for the caveator through V.C.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application for release of the tenanted premises was filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant; that, the same was allowed; that, in the affidavit in evidence filed by the petitioner/tenant (Annexure-9), it was specifically stated in para-3 that the respondent/landlord does not have any bonafide need of the tenanted shop as he had got another shop vacated from his other tenant, namely, Brij Mohan; that, in reply to this averment made by way of affidavit by the petitioner/tenant, the respondent/landlord filed the rebuttal/counter affidavit (Annexure No.10), however, in this reply affidavit the respondent/landlord did not deny this fact and did not explain the same either; that, hence the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in not taking into consideration this important and material fact and the judgments impugned are thus liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

4. Per contra, counsel for the caveator would submit that in the application for release of the tenanted shop on the ground of bonafide need it was specifically stated that there were three shops and all the three shops were needed. She would further submit that so far as the affidavit Annexure-9 is concerned, the same is of no consequence and no reliance can be placed upon it as in this affidavit the oath is taken by a person, namely, Vijay Verma and not by the present petitioner/tenant.

She would further submit that the fact stated in this alleged affidavit in para-3 was neither pleaded in the written statement nor it was incorporated in the written statement at later stage.

5. It is settled position in law that the High Court while exercise powers of a supervisory Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate body to re- appreciate evidence. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is merely a superintendence jurisdiction unless there is miscarriage of justice or violation of law.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on file, this Court does not find any patent error in the judgments impugned.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 20.11.2023 BS