- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27-7-2000 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the Ap pellate Authority and the application filed 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, was dismissed.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner filed ah application under Section 21 (a) (a) of the Act pleading that she had no source of income except the rent of the shop in dis pute. She wanted to augment her income by carrying on some business in shop in dispute, therefore, the said shop was liable to be released in her favour. Plea of more comparative hardship was also taken. The respondent objected to and opposed the application filed by the petitioner con tending that the need of the petitioner was neither genuine nor bona fide, therefore, there was/rib question of her suffering any hardship in case the application was rejected. IT is also pleaded that necessary facts and particulars were not disclosed in the release application. The release ap plication was, therefore, liable to be dis missed. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority recorded find ings on the questions of bona fide need and hardship in favour of the petitioner and allowed the application by the judgment and order dated 31-9- 1999. Challenging the validity of the said order, the respon dent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide and genuine need, by judgment and order dated 27-7- 2000 and allowed the application, Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority is based on surmises and conjectures. The findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority have not specifically been reversed, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Ave considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. The Appellate Authority has held that the petitioner in the application filed by her for release of the shop in dispute did not disclose the material facts and par ticulars. It was not stated that how many members were there in the family of the petitioner, what were her liabilities, whether the sons were already settled or not and other particulars which were necessary to be stated to Judge the genuineness of the need of the petitioner and reversed the finding on the question of bona fide need recorded by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the appeal by the judgment and order dated 27-7-2000. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are all findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are based on the surmises and conjecture, therefore, cannot be accepted. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India is made out.
(3.) THE writ petition fails and is dis missed in limine. Petition dismissed. .;