- (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 23-10-1986 whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) in short 'the Act' was dismissed and the order dated 17-8-1987 by which appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority was dismissed.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner filed an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act on the ground of his personal need Le. to settle one of his sons "to run the betel, Cigarette and Bidi shop. IT was pleaded that in case the application is rejected the petitioner/landlord shall suffer greater hardship. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the contesting Respondent Nos. 3 to 7, the facts stated in the release application were denied. IT was also pleaded that the need of the petitioner for the shop in dispute was neither genuine nor bona fide- and that in case the release application is allowed the contesting respondents shall suffer great hardship. Parties in support of their cases produced oral and documentary eviden ces. The Prescribed Authority after con sidering the material on record recorded findings on the question of bona fide need and hardship against the petitioner and dismissed the application by judgment and order dated 23-10-1996. Challenging the validity of the said order petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority Respondent No. 1. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 17-8-1987 hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below did not consider the evidence of the parties properly and arrived at a wrong con clusion. The judgments, orders passed by them were illegal and, therefore, are liable to be set aside. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. The authorities below as it evident from the material on record recorded findings on the question of bona fide need and hardship against the petitioner and in favour of contesting respondents. Said findings are findings of fact and are based on the correct appraisal of relevant evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse. Further it may be noted that the present petition was filed in the year 1987 and till date even the notices to the respondents have not been issued. Since then about 13 years have already elapsed. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition has got no merit. The same fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;