Supervisory writ review cannot disturb reasoned findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

In supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate court against a reasoned factual finding unless there is patent legal error, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity. The appellate authority had found the landlords' bona fide requirement genuine and comparative hardship in their favour on evidence, while the Prescribed Authority relied on irrelevant considerations. Those factual findings were not shown to be perverse, and no concrete material established the tenant's inability to obtain alternative accommodation. Interference with the eviction order was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was justified in interfering with the appellate authority's finding that the landlords had established bona fide requirement of the shop and that comparative hardship lay in their favour.

Analysis: The application for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on grounds found to be irrelevant to the statutory enquiry, including the social status of the landlords, alleged lack of experience in readymade garments, and supposed need for an office or godown. The appellate authority reversed those findings and recorded that the landlords' need was genuine and that no material showed the tenant had attempted to secure alternative accommodation. In writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or sit as an appellate court over such findings of fact unless there was grave jurisdictional error, exclusion of admissible evidence, or reliance on inadmissible material. The appellate authority's finding of bona fide requirement was a factual finding based on evidence and was not shown to be perverse. The comparative hardship finding also did not justify the High Court's interference, since no concrete material established the tenant's inability to secure another shop.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the appellate authority's order of eviction.

Final Conclusion: Interference under Articles 226 and 227 with a reasoned factual determination on bona fide need and comparative hardship was unwarranted, and the landlords were entitled to eviction relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reweigh evidence or disturb concurrent or reasoned factual findings on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship unless the findings suffer from patent legal error, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity.

---