- (1.) By means of the present petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, the tenant-petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6-9-1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Respondent No. 2 appointed under Section 21, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'), whereby the application for the release of the accommodation has been allowed in favour of the landlord and the judgment and the order dated 18-7-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge/Respondent No. 1 affirming the above release order passed by the Prescribed Authority (Annexures 5 and 6 to the Writ Petition) and prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the aforementioned impugned orders.
(2.) One R. N. Gupta (Respondent No. 3), called 'the landlord' in the present petition, initiated release proceedings by filing application (P. A. Case No. 44 of 1993, Ram Narain Gupta v. Deepak Nijhawan) under Section 21(1)(A) of the Act on the ground that he was the landlord of the residential building-house No. 222/1 Civil Lines, Bareilly called 'the accommodation' which was in possession of Deepak Nijhawan (the Tenant) in as much as the said accommodation was bona fide required since his sole son, residing and doing business at Allahabad, was to settle at Bareilly to look after his old father and mother, i.e. the landlord Respondent No. 3 and his wife aged about 71 and 65 years respectively.
(3.) It may be noted here that approximately nine years have elapsed and the landlord and his wife are now aged about 80 and 74 years respectively. It is claimed that the need of the landlord was, genuine/bona fide, hard and pressing; the petitioner-Deepak Nijhawan/the tenant was financially sound, and the comparative hardship to the landlord was going to be more as compared to the hardship to be faced by the tenant if the accommodation was not released.;