NASEER AHMAD AND ORS. Vs. SALEKH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bona fide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material available on record allowed the said application filed under section 21 of the Act by order dated 16.1.2012. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2012 and the same was dismissed by order dated 6.2.2012. Hence the present writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Both the Courts below after perusing the pleadings and evidence on record held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine and the comparative hardship also tilts in favour of the landlord. The Court below have categorically recorded the findings that the son of the landlord for whom the need has been set up by the landlord is neither carrying on any independent business nor has any suitable alternative accommodation. It was further held that the during the pendency of the release application, the petitioners did not make any effort to search out any alternative accommodation. It was further held by the Court below that if the petitioners are evicted from the disputed house, he will not suffer any greater hardship.

(3.) Both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the petitioners to be bona fide and genuine and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the Courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the Courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The Appellate Court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own opinion to the opinion of the Courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the lower Court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law.