ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) AFTER the notice has been held to be sufficient, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is finally disposed of, since it is fairly old petition of the year 1984.
(2.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority, passed under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby the appellate authority has reversed the findings and conclusion arrived at by the prescribed authority on an application filed by the petitioner, landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner -landlord filed the aforesaid application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act on the ground that since he is living in a tenanted house, which is in dispute in the present writ petition under the new Act and the house in which the petitioner is residing on a tenancy, has made efforts to get him evicted on the ground that the petitioner has his own house in the same local area. On the strength of this averment, the prescribed authority accepted the application and released the accommodation in question, which was the subject matter of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The appellate authority has arrived at a conclusion that the accommodation of the landlord cannot be said to be bona fide required as contemplated under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as held by apex Court in the case of Mst. Bega Begum and others v. Abdul Ahad Khan (dead) by L.R's and others, reported in AIR 1979 SC 272. I have perused the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act. According to the law laid down by apex Court in Mst. Bega Begum's case (supra), the application of the landlord in the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and appellate authority has not committed any error of law in reversing the order of the prescribed authority in dismissing the application filed by the landlord.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.D. Singh has argued that if the reply of the contention to the paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the application filed by petitioner before the prescribed authority is considered, then it would be apparent that the prescribed authority has not committed any error as found by the appellate authority.;