- (1.) AN application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the "Act") was filed by the respondent -landlord Rajeev Kumar Jain for release of the disputed shop on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application by order dated 28.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 2011, under section 22 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 26.05.2011. Hence the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent -landlord is already carrying on business, as such, his need is not bonafide and genuine.
(2.) BOTH the courts below after perusing the record held that the respondent -landlord has no independent business and he was simply assisting his father and brother in the business and his two children are of growing age. It was further held that the petitioner did not make any effort to search out any accommodation during the pendency of the release application and he can very well shift his business to the ground floor of his house and hence the said findings are based on appraisal of the evidence produced in the case. No cogent material was placed by the petitioner before the courts below to substantiate his arguments. Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord, 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 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 landlord to be bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not 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. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) AFTER the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlord did not raise any objection to it.;