ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was dismissed by me vide my order dated 4th July, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) BY means of the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio of India, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioners, who are landlord of the shop in question, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the release of the shop in question on the ground that they want to set up their one of the sons, who is still unemployed and has not studied more, in business of Kirana and for that purposes the need is bona fide. It has also been stated in the application that the tenant has sufficient accommodation at his disposal where he can comfortably shift and thus the tenant will not suffer hardship and the comparison of the hardship at all would be in favour of the landlord.
(3.) THE parties have exchanged their pleadings and evidence. The prescribed authority after considering the material evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties rejected the application of the landlord, vide his judgment and order dated 8 -3 - 1994, Annexure -21 to the writ petition, and recorded a categorical finding that the landlord have not been able to establish bona fide need and even in the comparison of the hardship, tilt would be in favour of the tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners -landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority after giving full opportunity to the parties concerned, vide its judgment and order dated 14 -2 -1995, Annexure -24 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority both on the question of bona fide requirement as well as on the question of comparative hardship. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners -landlord Sri Atul Dayal argued that the approach of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority in arriving at the finding that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and that the comparative hardship tilt in favour of the tenant is not correct and these findings deserve to be set aside. He further tries to assail the findings by putting one affidavit or the other, or other peaces of evidence to the effect that the findings suffer from the manifest error of law. I have considered the arguments and perused the documents and also the decisions, which have been referred to by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners -landlord. These decisions, in my opinion, have been decided on the facts of respective case. So far as the question of law is concerned, it is settled and re -affirmed by a recent decision of Apex Court reported in 2001(2) JCLR 249 (SC) Allahabad Rent Cases, 2001 (Vol. 2) 1 Ashok Kumar and others v. Sita Ram. Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: (9) The position is too well settled to admit of any controversy that the finding of fact recorded by the final Court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. ;