Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) In pursuance of the order passed by me on 15th March, 2002 in Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 48618 of 2002, this petition is being heard on merits for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is a tenant petition arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3, who is the landlord of the premises No. 118/479 (1). Kaushalpuri, Kanpur, filed an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No, 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), on the ground that the landlord requires the aforesaid shop for his bona fide purposes and the tilts of the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority issued notices to both the parties. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and also their evidence. The prescribed authority after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the release application on 9.10.1987, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, and directed to release the shop in question after recording the findings that the shop in question is bona fide required by the landlord and also the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.1987, passed by the prescribed authority, petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, which too has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 25.2.1989.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority, who have held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and comparison of the need also finds in favour of the landlord allowed the release application and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant, tried to assail before this Court the findings recorded by both the Courts below and submitted that the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority do not make out a case that the landlord either requires the shop in question for bona fide need, on the comparison of the hardship has been judged in the correct perspective and thus submitted that the orders impugned in the present writ petition deserve to be set aside and the application filed by the landlord deserves to be rejected on this ground. I have gone through the findings recorded by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, I do not find any error, much less an error of law as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner.;