R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 7.9.1998 whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 Shri Laxmi Narain and the order dated 9.2.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) It appears that respondent No. 3 filed an 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, for release of the building in question on the ground of his bona fide, genuine personal need. It was stated that the accommodation in possession of the respondent No. 3 was not sufficient to meet his requirements, therefore, the house in question was liable to be released. It was also stated that in case, the application of the respondent No. 3 is rejected, he would suffer great hardship. Claim of the respondent No. 3 was contested and opposed by the petitioner contending that the residential accommodation in possession of the respondent No. 3 was more than sufficient. His need was not genuine nor he was likely to suffer any hardship as claimed by him. Parties, in support of their cases, filed documentary evidence in the form of affidavits besides other evidence. The Prescribed Authority has taken into account the material on the record and recorded findings on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of respondent No. 3 and allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 7.9.1998. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 9.2.2000, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the authorities below did not take into consideration the material on the record consequently their findings are perverse and order passed by the authorities below are liable to be quashed. It was also urged that question of comparative hardship was also not considered by the authorities below in accordance with law. The application and revision were decided contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.;