[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mahesh Chandra Shah vs Harish Chandra Joshi on 10 February, 2026
2026:UHC:719
Judgment Reserved on: 26.11.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 10.02.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021
Mahesh Chandra Shah .....Petitioner
Versus
Harish Chandra Joshi .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
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
1
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
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 ₹ 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
2
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by reappreciating
evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the well-
reasoned 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.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate
Court committed a serious error in holding that
accommodation on the first floor could meet the Petitioner's
requirement. It was contended that the landlord is the best
judge of his need and that a retail garment business
necessarily requires a ground floor location in a market
area, a reality which the Appellate Court failed to appreciate.
8. It was further urged that the Appellate Court
ignored the statutory requirement of assessing comparative
3
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
hardship. The Respondent had failed to lead any evidence of
efforts made to search for alternative accommodation,
whereas the Petitioner had established genuine hardship.
Long duration of tenancy, it was submitted, cannot by itself
defeat a bona fide need of the landlord.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that no interference is
warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was
argued that the Appellate Court has exercised its
jurisdiction within the bounds of law and that the present
petition is an attempt to seek reappreciation of evidence,
which is impermissible in supervisory jurisdiction.
10. It was contended that the Petitioner failed to
establish a genuine and pressing necessity for eviction and
that the alleged need is not bona fide. Learned counsel
submitted that the Petitioner had other accommodation
available and that his requirement could reasonably be met
without dislodging a long-standing tenant.
11. Learned counsel further argued that the Appellate
Court rightly took note of the fact that the Petitioner had
sold certain shops in the past, which casts doubt on the
4
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
genuineness of the claimed need. It was submitted that the
conduct of the landlord is a relevant consideration while
assessing bona fides under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
12. It was lastly contended that the Respondent has
been carrying on his livelihood from the shop in question for
a considerable length of time and that eviction would cause
him serious hardship. The Appellate Court, according to
learned counsel, rightly protected the tenant, and the
impugned judgment does not suffer from perversity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference.
13. Upon consideration of the pleadings, affidavits and
documentary evidence, the Prescribed Authority recorded
categorical findings that the Petitioner had established a
bona fide and genuine need for the shop in question, that
the Respondent had failed to prove any sincere effort to
search for alternative accommodation, and that the balance
of comparative hardship tilted in favour of the landlord.
Consequently, the release application was allowed vide
judgment dated 18.02.2020.
14. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent preferred an
appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Appellate
5
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
Court allowed the appeal primarily on the reasoning that the
Petitioner had other accommodation available, including
accommodation on the first floor, and that comparative
hardship did not warrant eviction of the tenant.
15. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. While this
Court does not re-appreciate evidence as a court of appeal, it
is duty bound to interfere where the subordinate court has
acted in excess of jurisdiction, ignored settled principles of
law, or recorded findings which are perverse or unsupported
by the record.
16. Proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 are summary in nature. Findings of fact
recorded by the Prescribed Authority, particularly on the
issues of bona fide need and comparative hardship, are
entitled to due deference and cannot be interfered with
unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading of
evidence.
17. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority
recorded clear and cogent findings that the Petitioner, after
retirement, required the shop in question to establish his
6
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
own business and that such need was genuine and bona
fide. These findings are supported by pleadings and evidence
on record and cannot be characterised as arbitrary or
perverse.
18. It is a settled principle that the landlord is the best
judge of his requirement. The tenant cannot dictate as to
how, where or in what manner the landlord should carry on
his business. The Appellate Court fell into error in holding
that accommodation on the first floor could adequately meet
the landlord's requirement.
19. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a retail
garment business ordinarily requires visibility, accessibility
and footfall, which are normally associated with a ground
floor shop in a market area. The reasoning adopted by the
Appellate Court is thus divorced from practical realities.
20. The finding of the Appellate Court regarding
availability of alternative accommodation with the landlord
is based on conjectures. The sale of two shops by the
Petitioner was specifically explained as having been
necessitated by medical exigencies relating to the treatment
of his wife, which explanation was supported by medical
7
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
documents and was not effectively rebutted by the tenant.
21. It is equally well settled that the need of the
landlord is to be assessed as on the date of filing of the
release application. Subsequent developments, unless they
completely extinguish the need, do not dislodge a bona fide
requirement established on the relevant date.
22. On the aspect of comparative hardship, the
Prescribed Authority recorded a clear finding that the
Respondent failed to lead any evidence showing efforts made
by him to search for alternative accommodation. The
Respondent also admitted availability of other property in
close proximity. These findings have not been reversed on
any legally sustainable basis by the Appellate Court.
23. The observation of the Appellate Court that
comparative hardship need not be decided is contrary to
Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act and is legally
untenable.
24. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal
without dislodging the specific findings of fact recorded by
the Prescribed Authority. Such an approach amounts to
8
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:719
reappreciation of evidence beyond the permissible limits of
appellate jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act.
25. This Court is therefore of the considered view that
the impugned judgment dated 24.08.2021 suffers from
perversity, misapplication of settled principles of law and
jurisdictional error, warranting interference under Article
227 of the Constitution.
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and
order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned District
Judge, Almora in Rent Control Appeal No. 04 of 2020 is set
aside. The judgment and order dated 18.02.2020 passed by
the Prescribed Authority, Almora is restored.
Respondent-tenant shall vacate the shop in
question within the period granted by the Prescribed
Authority, failing which the Petitioner-landlord shall be
entitled to execute the order in accordance with law.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
10.02.2026
NR/
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2109 of 2021------Mahesh Chandra Shah v. Harish Chandra
Joshi
Ashish Naithani J.
