- (1.) An application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bona fide and genuine need. It was alleged in the said application that Vikash Gupta and Pawan Gupta, sons of the respondent No. 4 were unemployed and the disputed shop was required for them for business purposes. The petitioner contested the matter and filed his written statement. The Prescribed Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence on record allowed the said application filed under section 21 of the Act by order dated 13.5.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 2010 and the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 2.8.2011 dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Both the Courts below after perusing the pleadings and evidence on record held that the need of the landlords is bona fide and genuine since the sons of the respondent No. 3 are unemployed and they do not have any other accommodation to carry on their independent businesses. Both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the landlords to be bona fide and genuine and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the Courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The Courts below have also held that the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlords. It was also further held that during the pendency of the release application, the petitioner did not make any efforts to search out any alternative accommodation. The finding recorded by the Courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The Appellate Court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlords to be bona fide and genuine. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the Courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the Lower Court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. No other point has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) I do not see any merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;