Bhupendra Kumar Rathi, J. - (1.) THE property in dispute in non -residential shop No. 311 (old) and 277 New situated in Kabari Bazaar, Meerut City. The application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII to 1972 was filed by the landlords -respondents against the petitioner and his brothers and Ramlal. The application for release was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by judgment (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) on 24.4.1999. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, being appeal No. 147 of 1999 which was also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut on 22.3.2001 by judgment, Annexure 11 to the petition. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in dispute and carrying on business in the same. The Court below has erred in recording the finding that his brothers were tenants of the shop in dispute and that the Court below has also erred in recording the finding that the petitioner is not in possession of the shop.
(2.) I have heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 8. Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that there are concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below on the point that the petitioner is not in possession of the shop; that the need of the landlords in bona fide; that the balance of convenience has also been found in favour of the respondents. That these are findings of fact which cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel in support of his argument has referred to Smt. Sushila Mishra v. XVIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut : 2001 (42) ALR 504. In this case, it has been laid down that the concurrent findings of facts regarding bona fide need and hardship of landlords recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
(3.) IN view of the above, the petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.;