R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also pursued the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution j of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10.8.2000, whereby the appeal filed by the contesting respondent No. 2 against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 25.1.1994, was allowed by the Appellate Authority.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) I (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act1 for release of the shop in dispute for her personal , use and occupation. The plea of comparatively more hardship was also taken. [ The release application was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondent No. 2, who denied the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that her need I was neither genuine nor bona fide and that there was no question of any I hardship to her in case the release application was dismissed. Parties, in I support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed I Authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the relevant material on the j record allowed release application by judgment and order dated 25.4.1994. I Challenging the validity of the said order, the contesting respondent-tenant I filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide need as well as comparative hardship and allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 10.8.2000. Hence, the present petition.;