[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Nandan Singh vs Sarvesh Kumar Mittal on 3 January, 2026
2026:UHC:110
Judgement Pronounced on:03.01.2026
Judgement Reserved on:02.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021
Nandan Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Sarvesh Kumar Mittal .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Hemant
Mahra, learned counsel for the Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the Petitioner, who is a long-standing tenant of
the premises in question, assailing the judgment and order dated
14.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnagar,
District Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 2018, as well as the
judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Prescribed
Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar in Rent Control
Case No. 02 of 2017. By the impugned orders, the authorities below
allowed the release application filed by the Respondent-landlord and
directed eviction of the Petitioner from the tenanted premises.
2. The Petitioner claims to be a tenant of the shop/premises in dispute for
several decades, stating that his family has been in continuous
occupation of the premises for nearly seventy years and that the said
shop constitutes his sole source of livelihood. The Respondent
1
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
instituted Rent Control Case No. 02 of 2017 before the Prescribed
Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of
the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement, asserting himself
to be the owner and landlord of the property.
3. By judgment and order dated 27.11.2018, the learned Prescribed
Authority allowed the release application and directed the Petitioner to
hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Respondent.
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 13
of 2018. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner sought to
bring additional documents on record; however, the said application
was rejected by the appellate court by order dated 30.05.2019.
Ultimately, the appeal itself came to be dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge on 14.12.2020, affirming the order of
eviction.
4. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court earlier by challenging
the order dated 30.05.2019, and subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by way of Special Leave Petition, both of which were dismissed,
though the Hon'ble Supreme Court left certain questions of law open
for consideration in an appropriate case. It is in this backdrop that the
present writ petition has been filed, challenging the final orders passed
by the courts below on the grounds of jurisdictional error, non-
consideration of relevant facts, and misapplication of settled legal
principles governing rent control proceedings.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that
the impugned judgments passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as
the Appellate Court are vitiated by non-consideration of material facts
and settled principles governing release applications under Section
21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was contended that the courts below
mechanically accepted the plea of bona fide need raised by the
Respondent without examining whether such need was genuine,
pressing, and incapable of being satisfied from other available
accommodations admittedly owned and possessed by the Respondent.
7. It was further argued that the Petitioner is a tenant in occupation of the
premises for several decades and that the shop in question constitutes
his sole source of livelihood. Learned counsel submitted that the
Petitioner had specifically pleaded and established comparative
hardship by demonstrating that eviction would deprive him of his only
means of subsistence, whereas the Respondent was possessed of
alternative vacant premises, including shops adjacent to the disputed
premises, which could have been conveniently utilized. According to
the Petitioner, this crucial aspect of comparative hardship has been
either cursorily dealt with or completely ignored by the courts below.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also assailed the findings relating to
ownership and entitlement of the Respondent, submitting that the
property in question was originally Nazul land and that the alleged
transfer and subsequent freehold conversion in favour of the
Respondent were not proved in accordance with law. It was urged that
these foundational issues directly impacted the Respondent's locus to
seek release of the premises and that both the Prescribed Authority and
3
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
the Appellate Court failed to examine the legality and evidentiary worth
of the documents relied upon by the Respondent.
9. Further submission was made that during the pendency of the appeal,
the Petitioner sought to bring additional documents on record, which
were necessary for a just and effective adjudication of the controversy;
however, the Appellate Court rejected the application for additional
evidence without assigning cogent reasons. It was contended that such
rejection has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioner and has
rendered the appellate proceedings illusory. On these grounds, it was
argued that the impugned orders suffer from perversity and
jurisdictional error, thereby calling for interference by this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent
opposed the writ petition and submitted that the scope of interference
under Article 227 is extremely limited and does not permit re-
appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings merely because
another view is possible.
11. It was contended that both the Prescribed Authority and the
Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings of fact in favour
of the Respondent after appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and
material on record, and such concurrent findings do not warrant
interference in supervisory jurisdiction.
12. It was further submitted that the Respondent successfully
established his bona fide requirement for the premises and that the need
pleaded was neither artificial nor pretextual. Learned counsel argued
4
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
that the mere assertion by the Petitioner regarding availability of
alternative accommodation does not ipso facto dislodge the
Respondent's bona fide need, particularly when the courts below, upon
appreciation of evidence, found the said plea to be unsubstantiated.
13. With regard to comparative hardship, learned counsel for the
Respondent submitted that the authorities below have duly considered
the relative hardship of both parties and have rightly concluded that the
balance tilts in favour of the Respondent. It was argued that long
possession by itself does not create an indefeasible right in favour of
the tenant, and once bona fide need is established, eviction cannot be
resisted solely on the ground of duration of tenancy.
14. Learned counsel further contended that the objections relating to
title and nature of land are wholly misconceived in rent control
proceedings, wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant is
determinative and not the absolute title. It was submitted that the
Petitioner, having admitted the tenancy, is estopped from disputing the
Respondent's title. It was therefore urged that the writ petition is devoid
of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
15. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position
that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is supervisory in nature and not appellate. Interference is
warranted only where the subordinate courts have acted in excess of
jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, or where the
findings recorded are so perverse or unreasonable that no prudent
person could have arrived at such conclusions on the basis of the
material on record.
5
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
16. The proceedings in question arise out of a release application
filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, wherein the
primary considerations before the Prescribed Authority are the
existence of bona fide need of the landlord and the comparative
hardship between the parties. The record reveals that both the
authorities below have adverted to these twin requirements and have
returned concurrent findings in favour of the Respondent-landlord.
17. So far as the issue of bona fide need is concerned, this Court
finds that the Prescribed Authority examined the pleadings and
evidence led by the parties and recorded a categorical finding that the
Respondent had established a genuine requirement for the premises in
question. The Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the material,
concurred with the said finding. Mere assertion by the Petitioner that
the Respondent possessed other properties or that adjacent shops were
available does not, by itself, dislodge the finding of bona fide need,
particularly when the courts below found such pleas to be unsupported
by reliable evidence. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge
of his requirement, and the tenant cannot dictate as to how or where
such need should be satisfied.
18. On the question of comparative hardship, this Court notes that the
Petitioner placed reliance on the long duration of tenancy and the plea
that the premises in question constituted his sole source of livelihood.
While such considerations are undoubtedly relevant, the same do not
operate in isolation. The authorities below have taken into account the
relative hardship of both parties and have recorded a finding that
6
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
greater hardship would be caused to the Respondent if the release were
denied.
19. This Court does not find that such conclusion is arbitrary or
based on irrelevant considerations. Long continuance of tenancy, by
itself, does not create an indefeasible right in favour of the tenant once
the statutory grounds for release are established.
20. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the
alleged defects in title and the nature of the land being Nazul land has
also been considered. This Court is of the view that rent control
proceedings are not the appropriate forum for adjudication of complex
questions relating to absolute title. What is material in such proceedings
is the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, which the Petitioner
does not seriously dispute. A tenant, having acknowledged the
relationship of tenancy, is estopped from questioning the title of the
landlord in collateral proceedings of this nature. The courts below,
therefore, cannot be faulted for declining to embark upon a detailed
inquiry into title issues beyond the scope of the rent control
jurisdiction.
21. With regard to the grievance relating to rejection of the
application for additional evidence at the appellate stage, this Court
finds that the Appellate Court exercised its discretion in declining the
said request. The power to admit additional evidence is not to be
exercised routinely and is circumscribed by well-settled principles. The
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the documents sought to be
produced could not have been filed earlier despite due diligence or that
their exclusion has resulted in manifest injustice. In the absence of such
7
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:110
a showing, the rejection of the application cannot be said to suffer from
any jurisdictional infirmity.
22. This Court further finds that the findings recorded by the
Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Court are reasoned,
based on appreciation of evidence, and do not disclose any perversity
or patent illegality. The attempt of the Petitioner, in essence, is to seek a
reappreciation of evidence and substitution of concurrent findings,
which is impermissible in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity
or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments passed by the
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court warranting interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:03.01.2026
NR/
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 316 of 2021-----Nandan Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal
Ashish Naithani J.
