R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.4.1996 whereby the release application filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 -landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 24.5.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Prescribed Authority, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 2 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 for his personal use and occupation. The said application was opposed by the petitioners who had denied the claim of the respondent landlord. It was contended that the need of the landlord was neither genuine nor bona fide. The plea of comparative hardship was also taken. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record, recorded findings on the question of bona fide and genuine need as well as on the question of hardship in favour of respondent No. 3 and allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 22.4.1996. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed 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 24.5.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally in allowing the release application and in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. It was urged that the need of respondent No. 2 was neither genuine nor bona fide. The application filed by the said respondent was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It was also contended that the authorities below have misread, misconstrued and ignored the material evidence on record and, therefore, judgments/orders passed by the authorities below were liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the validity of the impugned judgments and orders. It was urged that the findings recorded by the authorities below are concurrent findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. The present writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.;