R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 5.10.1999 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority was allowed.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short the Act, for release of the shop in dispute. It was pleaded that the shop was needed as respondent No. 2 wanted to settle his son Rahul Mittal in business. He had no other shop on which he could work independently. The need was stated to be bona fide and genuine. It was also pleaded that in case his application was dismissed, the respondent shall suffer irreparable loss and comparatively greater hardship than the hardship which may be suffered to the opposite party petitioner in case the release application is allowed. The release application filed by the respondent No. 2 was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. It was pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had flourishing business. He was doing business in the name and style, i.e., (1) Mittal General Stores, (2) Mittal Bandhu, (3) Rajiv Ceramic Traders, and (4) Bhagwan Ceramics Share Business and his son Rahul Mittal was also working with him. Therefore, the need of the respondent No. 2 was neither genuine nor bona fide. It was pleaded that in case the petitioner was ousted from the shop in dispute, he shall suffer comparatively greater hardship. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary, before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on record, recorded findings against the respondent No. 2 and in favour of petitioner on the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship and dismissed the application filed by him by its judgment and order dated 23.12.1996. Challenging the validity of the said judgment and order the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 5.10.1999. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the appellate authority has acted illegally in passing the impugned judgment and order without reversing the findings which were recorded by the Prescribed Authority in accordance with law. It was urged that the appellate authority substituted its own findings for the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority without following the procedure prescribed for the same. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 urged that the appellate authority has taken into consideration the entire evidence on record and critically examined the same. It was also urged that the appellate authority has critically examined the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter reversed the same. The findings recorded by the appellate authority are stated to be based on the material evidence on record. The writ petition, according to him, was liable to be dismissed.;