Sri Anup Singh Sahi v. Bhandar, situated in Bara Bazar, Mallital, Nainital, have invoked the

Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 1 allegedly beyond the statutory threshold, thereby holding that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction.

3. The respondent is a long-standing tenant running a sweets shop under the name “Agra Misthan Bhandar.” The landlords filed a release application on 10.02.2021, asserting bona fide need to establish their two unemployed sons in business and stating that no other suitable commercial accommodation was available to them.

4. In response, the tenant denied the applicability of the Act and alleged that the landlords wanted to increase the rent from ₹ 2,500 to ₹ 20,000 per month. Relying solely on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000, he claimed that the contractual rent was ₹ 2,500 per month. Still, he produced no rent deed, rent receipt, or consistent record of payment to substantiate this claim or to establish any statutory exemption.

5. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant had failed to prove the alleged rent and that the solitary bank transfer could not be treated as proof of a contractual rate. It noted the complete absence of documentary material supporting the tenant’s stand and accepted the municipal assessment records filed by the landlady. It therefore held that the tenant had not discharged the burden of showing that the Act was inapplicable and, on evaluating the remaining evidence, recorded findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlords.

6. The appellate court, however, allowed the tenant’s appeal solely on the ground that the Act did not apply, holding that the landlords had failed to prove the rate of rent. While acknowledging that the tenant’s evidence was “not final,” it nevertheless accepted it as sufficient to oust Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 2 the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court failed to consider that the burden of proving exemption lay on the tenant, ignored the municipal records produced by the landlords, and did not examine the detailed findings on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the appellate court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Prescribed Authority solely on the issue of applicability of the Act. It was argued that the landlords had clearly pleaded that the Act applied, whereas the tenant failed to plead or prove any foundational facts to show that the contractual rent was above the statutory threshold. The tenant relied only on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000 without any proof that it represented rent. Counsel submitted that the burden to establish exemption from the Act lay on the tenant, who asserted such exemption, and that the appellate court wrongly shifted this burden onto the landlords.

9. It was further argued that the appellate court ignored the municipal assessment record filed along with the landlady’s affidavit, which supported the landlords’ case. It was submitted that the Prescribed Authority had correctly assessed the evidence, found the plea of higher rent unproved, and thereafter recorded proper findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship. These findings, it was urged, were supported by the material on record and were not examined at all by the appellate court.

10. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent supported the appellate judgment and contended that the bank transfer of ₹ 30,000 Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 3 showed that the rent was ₹ 2,500 per month, taking the premises outside the purview of the Act. Counsel submitted that the landlords, who asserted applicability of the Act, failed to prove the actual rent, and therefore the appellate court correctly held that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction. It was further argued that once jurisdiction was found lacking, the appellate court was not required to examine the merits of bona fide need or comparative hardship. Counsel also suggested that eviction would cause serious hardship to the tenant, who had been running his business from the shop for many years.

11. This Court finds that the appellate court materially erred in reversing the burden of proof. Since the landlords pleaded applicability of the Act, and the tenant asserted a special defence that the rent exceeded the statutory ceiling, the burden unquestionably lay on the tenant to plead and prove the jurisdictional facts necessary to exclude the premises from the protection of the Act. The tenant did not discharge that burden. A single bank transfer without indication of the nature or period of payment cannot establish a contractual rate of rent, much less a rate sufficient to oust the statute. The appellate court’s acceptance of such insufficient material while disregarding the landlords’ evidence amounts to a perverse and selective appreciation of evidence.

12. This Court also finds that the appellate court failed in its duty as a first appellate court by not considering the well-reasoned findings of the Prescribed Authority on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship. The Prescribed Authority had found, on evidence, that the landlady was nearing retirement, her sons were unemployed and intended to start a business in the very premises owned by the family, and that no other suitable premises were available. It also found that the Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 4 tenant was financially in a position to shift his business elsewhere with less hardship than the landlords would suffer if the application was rejected. These findings are not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence and therefore warrant no interference.

13. In the totality of circumstances, the impugned judgment dated

22.04.2024, passed by the District Judge, suffers from errors of law, misapplication of principles regarding burden of proof, improper appreciation of evidence, and failure to consider the appeal on its true merits. The error goes to the root of jurisdiction and calls for interference under Article 227. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ORDER The judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed by the District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2023 is set aside, and the judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital, allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is restored. To balance equities, the respondent-tenant is granted six months’ time to vacate the premises, subject to his filing, within four weeks, an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession within the aforesaid period and shall not induct any third party. The tenant shall clear all arrears of rent within two months and shall continue to pay the last admitted rent by the 7th day of every month until delivery of possession. In the event of default in filing the undertaking, or in payment of arrears or current rent, the benefit of time shall stand withdrawn Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 5 automatically, and the Petitioners shall be entitled to proceed with execution forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:12.12.2025 NR Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 6

Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 1 allegedly beyond the statutory threshold, thereby holding that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction.

3. The respondent is a long-standing tenant running a sweets shop under the name “Agra Misthan Bhandar.” The landlords filed a release application on 10.02.2021, asserting bona fide need to establish their two unemployed sons in business and stating that no other suitable commercial accommodation was available to them.

4. In response, the tenant denied the applicability of the Act and alleged that the landlords wanted to increase the rent from ₹ 2,500 to ₹ 20,000 per month. Relying solely on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000, he claimed that the contractual rent was ₹ 2,500 per month. Still, he produced no rent deed, rent receipt, or consistent record of payment to substantiate this claim or to establish any statutory exemption.

5. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant had failed to prove the alleged rent and that the solitary bank transfer could not be treated as proof of a contractual rate. It noted the complete absence of documentary material supporting the tenant’s stand and accepted the municipal assessment records filed by the landlady. It therefore held that the tenant had not discharged the burden of showing that the Act was inapplicable and, on evaluating the remaining evidence, recorded findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlords.

6. The appellate court, however, allowed the tenant’s appeal solely on the ground that the Act did not apply, holding that the landlords had failed to prove the rate of rent. While acknowledging that the tenant’s evidence was “not final,” it nevertheless accepted it as sufficient to oust Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 2 the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court failed to consider that the burden of proving exemption lay on the tenant, ignored the municipal records produced by the landlords, and did not examine the detailed findings on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the appellate court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Prescribed Authority solely on the issue of applicability of the Act. It was argued that the landlords had clearly pleaded that the Act applied, whereas the tenant failed to plead or prove any foundational facts to show that the contractual rent was above the statutory threshold. The tenant relied only on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000 without any proof that it represented rent. Counsel submitted that the burden to establish exemption from the Act lay on the tenant, who asserted such exemption, and that the appellate court wrongly shifted this burden onto the landlords.

9. It was further argued that the appellate court ignored the municipal assessment record filed along with the landlady’s affidavit, which supported the landlords’ case. It was submitted that the Prescribed Authority had correctly assessed the evidence, found the plea of higher rent unproved, and thereafter recorded proper findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship. These findings, it was urged, were supported by the material on record and were not examined at all by the appellate court.

10. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent supported the appellate judgment and contended that the bank transfer of ₹ 30,000 Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 3 showed that the rent was ₹ 2,500 per month, taking the premises outside the purview of the Act. Counsel submitted that the landlords, who asserted applicability of the Act, failed to prove the actual rent, and therefore the appellate court correctly held that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction. It was further argued that once jurisdiction was found lacking, the appellate court was not required to examine the merits of bona fide need or comparative hardship. Counsel also suggested that eviction would cause serious hardship to the tenant, who had been running his business from the shop for many years.

11. This Court finds that the appellate court materially erred in reversing the burden of proof. Since the landlords pleaded applicability of the Act, and the tenant asserted a special defence that the rent exceeded the statutory ceiling, the burden unquestionably lay on the tenant to plead and prove the jurisdictional facts necessary to exclude the premises from the protection of the Act. The tenant did not discharge that burden. A single bank transfer without indication of the nature or period of payment cannot establish a contractual rate of rent, much less a rate sufficient to oust the statute. The appellate court’s acceptance of such insufficient material while disregarding the landlords’ evidence amounts to a perverse and selective appreciation of evidence.

12. This Court also finds that the appellate court failed in its duty as a first appellate court by not considering the well-reasoned findings of the Prescribed Authority on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship. The Prescribed Authority had found, on evidence, that the landlady was nearing retirement, her sons were unemployed and intended to start a business in the very premises owned by the family, and that no other suitable premises were available. It also found that the Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 4 tenant was financially in a position to shift his business elsewhere with less hardship than the landlords would suffer if the application was rejected. These findings are not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence and therefore warrant no interference.

13. In the totality of circumstances, the impugned judgment dated

22.04.2024, passed by the District Judge, suffers from errors of law, misapplication of principles regarding burden of proof, improper appreciation of evidence, and failure to consider the appeal on its true merits. The error goes to the root of jurisdiction and calls for interference under Article 227. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ORDER The judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed by the District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2023 is set aside, and the judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital, allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is restored. To balance equities, the respondent-tenant is granted six months’ time to vacate the premises, subject to his filing, within four weeks, an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession within the aforesaid period and shall not induct any third party. The tenant shall clear all arrears of rent within two months and shall continue to pay the last admitted rent by the 7th day of every month until delivery of possession. In the event of default in filing the undertaking, or in payment of arrears or current rent, the benefit of time shall stand withdrawn Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 5 automatically, and the Petitioners shall be entitled to proceed with execution forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:12.12.2025 NR Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J. 6