- (1.) This writ, petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.2002 (Annexure - 22 to the writ petition) passed by the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Azamgarh and the impugned order dated 20.5.1993 (Annexure 16 to the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge) whereby the release application of the landlady has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The release application was jointly filed under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") in the year 1984 by Smt. Bhuna and her daughter Smt. Sushila Devi whereby the need of the son of respondent No. 3 Shushila Devi namely Puncham was set up for carrying on the business from the disputed shop. The petitioner filed his written statement and contested the matter. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 29.10.1986 allowed the release application. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the appellate authority by order dated 23.8.1989 remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority with certain direction. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority again allowed the release application by order dated 21.4.1990. The petitioner filed again an appeal and the appellate authority again set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 30.11.1990. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence on record as well as rival submissions made by the parties allowed the release application by judgment and order dated 20.5.1993. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal and the said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 64 of 1990. The Appellate Court, by judgment and order dated 4.4.2002 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below have erred in allowing the release application, holding the need of the landlady to be bona fide and genuine, and also that the comparative hardship in her favour. It is further submitted that no partition of the disputed property ever took place among the legal heirs of late Smt. Bhuna.
(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the landlady, respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned orders and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are in accordance with law and does not require any interference.;