R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 10.5.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the contesting respondent was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations and directions made in the said order. It appears that contesting respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, as the shop in dispute was needed for his personal use. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority recorded the findings on the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the petitioner and against the landlord and dismissed the application by its judgment and order dated 8.4.1999. Challenging the validity of the said order, the landlord respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 10.5.2000, hence the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in allowing the appeal and remanding the case. According to him, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was liable to be dismissed as he has failed to substantiate his claim and to show that the shop in dispute was required bona fide and that he was going to suffer comparatively more hardship if the application was dismissed. I have considered submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority, after taking into consideration the evidence on the record, recorded findings against the landlord respondent No. 3. However, the Appellate Authority has reversed the said findings as the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority were erroneous and illegal and remanded the case.;