Comparative hardship finding treated as fact, limiting writ interference with concurrent evidence-based conclusions.

Concurrent findings that the landlord's need exceeded the tenant's were treated as findings of fact. In writ proceedings under Article 226, the High Court was not required to reappraise the evidence or substitute a different view on comparative hardship. The refusal to interfere with the factual finding was upheld, so the tenant's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the concurrent finding on comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant.

Analysis: The prescribed authority and the appellate court had found, on the evidence, that the landlord's need was greater than that of the tenant. That finding was treated as one of fact. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court was not required to reappraise the evidence and reach a different conclusion on comparative hardship.

Conclusion: The refusal to interfere with the finding of comparative hardship was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---