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 1.2.2000 whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by the contesting Respondent No. 3 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', and the order dated 17th June, 2000 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It appears that Respondent No. 3 Sri Jai Pal Singh filed and application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the building in question on the ground of personal need and hardship. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority after going through evidence produced by the parties allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 1st February, 2000. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner have filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 17th June, 2000. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally and in excess of their jurisdiction in allowing the application of Respondents No. 2 and 3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. It was urged that the need of Respondent No. 3 was neither genuine nor bona fide, therefore, the application filed by him was liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent K.K. Arora, supported the validity of the order passed by the Authorities below. It was urged that the authorities below have passed the impugned order after following the procedure prescribed by law and that the findings recorded by the authorities below on the question of bona fide and genuine need and comparative hardship are findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.;