Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioner who is the tenant of the shop in question aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority as well as of the appellate authority filed this petition which after earning the learned Counsel for the parties was dismissed by me on 14th March, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on: Now here are the reasons.
(2.) Landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of the Act, 1972, hereinafter called the 'Act' for the release of the said accommodation in dispute. The Prescribed Authority afforded opportunity to both the sides and adduced the evidence and after considering the findings arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bonafide and comparative hardship also tilts in favour of the landlord on this findings the prescribed " authority allowed the application filed by the landlord.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate Authority after hearing the appellant as well as the respondents dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the prescribed authority. Both the authorities have recorded the findings that need of the landlord is bonafide and hardship tilts in favour of the landlord.;