R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 9.5.1997 whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, filed by Smt. Kiran Devi, the landlady (respondent No. 3) and the order dated 6.4.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for releasing House No. 103, Moti Bazar, Dehradun in her favour. It was stated that the need of the landlady was bona fide and genuine and that in the event the release application was rejected, she would suffer comparatively greater hardship than the hardship which was likely to be occasioned to the petitioner in the event the application was allowed. The aforesaid application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner controverting and denying the facts stated in the release application. It was asserted that the need of respondent No. 3 was neither genuine nor bona fide and that in case the application was allowed, the petitioner will suffer comparatively greater hardship. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need of respondent No. 3 for the house in question was bona fide and genuine. The question of comparative hardship was also decided in her favour. Having recorded the said findings, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application for release by the judgment and order dated 9.5.1997. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also upheld the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and rejected the appeal by its judgment and order dated 6.4.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that as required under the law six months' notice before filing the release application was not given to the petitioner, therefore, the release application filed by respondent No. 3 was legally not maintainable. It was also urged that before the Appellate Authority it was contended that respondent No. 3 had sufficient alternative accommodation but the Appellate Authority completely ignored this aspect of the matter.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.;