B.K. Rathi, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this case is regarding a shop situated in Mohalla Ballabh Nagar, Orai district Jalaun. The respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the said house. He moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioners, the tenants of the shop for release being P.A. No. 4/1993, Annexure -1 to the petition. The petitioners contested the application. The prescribed authority, respondent No. 2 rejected the application for release by judgment dated 19.8.1994, Annexure -13 to the petition. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, being appeal No. 19/1994 which has been allowed on 17.2.2001 by respondent No. 1 by judgment, Annexure -14 to the petition. The petitioners, therefore, preferred this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order, Annexure -14 to the petition dated 17.2.2001. I have heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the record.
(2.) THE persual of the order, dated 19.8.1994 of respondent No. 2 show that he has not properly appreciated the facts. He should have considered the question of bona fide need and comparative hardships separately. However, he has not done so. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appellate court has erred in granting the release.
(3.) TWO points have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and it is contended that respondent No. 1 has erred in allowing the application for release for the reason, firstly, that in this case affidavits of several persons were filed alleging that the respondent No. 3, landlord, is not employed; that he is already carrying on the business of welding in a shop, the copies of the affidavits are Annexure -7 to 11 to the petition. Apart from this, a certificate issued by the Director of Industries for carrying on the welding business in the name of the father of the respondent No. 3 was also filed before the trial court However, learned Additional District Judge has erred in not considering these documents and observing that there is no evidence to show that the respondent No. 3 is carrying on welding shop. That, therefore, the respondent No. 1 has committed error in not considering this evidence.;