- (1.) The petitioners are the tenants of a 'baithak' on which one Smt. Manohari Devi was the landlord. Smt. Manohari Devi made an application for the release of the said 'baithak', on the ground that the said baithak constituted a part of her residential house and there being about 17 members in her family, she needed the 'baithak' in question as additional accommodation. The application was contested by the petitioners. During the pendency of the application Smt. Manohari Devi died. In pursuance of a Will executed by Smt. Manohari Devi in favour of respondent No. 3 who is her son and respondent No. 4 who is her grandson they got themselves substituted and also made an application for amendment of the release application setting up their own need for the baithak in question. After considering the evidence produced by the parties the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against that order which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has held that the need of the respondents 3 and 4 was bonafide. He has also held that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the event of the application for release being dismissed than the hardship likely to be caused to the petitioners on the said application being allowed. These orders of the Prescribed Authority and of respondent No. 1 are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that when on the death of Smt. Manohari Devi respondents No. 3 and 4 were substituted in her place, it was not open to these respondents to set up their own case in substitution of the case of Smt. Manohari Devi and the authorities below have erroneously proceeded to consider the needs of respondents No. 3 and 4 as set up by them. In my opinion, there is no substance in that submission in view of sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 which reads : "(7) Where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section (1) the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the deceased." As regard the findings recorded by the authorities below that the need of the landlord was bonafide and that greater hardship would be caused to them in the event of the release application being allowed than the hardship likely to be caused to the petitioners on the said application being dismissed suffice it to say that these findings are findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed but since no one has appeared to contest the writ petition, there will be no order as to cost. The petitioners are given one months time to vacate the baithak' in question.;