Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, J. - (1.) THE land -lord Mahabir Prasad has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the appellate court and for restoring the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application moved by the land -lord under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, here -in -after called the Act. The land -lord had in 1980 moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for evicting the opposite parties -tenants from the shop in question situate in mohalla Thatheri Bazar, District Gonda. The said shop was originally let out to Suraj Lal, who died leaving respondents 2 to 6 as his heirs and therefore, those respondents inherited the tenancy rights. The land -lord petitioner has alleged that originally he was having a contract of running canteen in Civil Courts, Gonda, but for the last several years he could not get the said contract, and therefore, he as well as his sons wanted to carry on canteen business in the shop in question. His three sons Rajendra Prasad. Ravindra Prakash and Ravi Prakash are also of growing up age and they would also join the petitioner -land -lord for carrying on business in the said shop. The eldest son of the petitioner -landlord is living on the back side of the shop in question. The tenant -respondents have several shops where they can shift their business and they have absolutely no need to retain the shop in question.
(2.) THE application was resisted by Jamuna Prasad, respondent No. 2 alone (one of the sons of deceased Suraj Lal), the other heirs of Suraj Lal did not contest the application. In the objection it is alleged that the landlord had no bona fide need for the shop in question. The eldest son of the landlord is carrying on business in a shop just adjoining the shop in question and the land -lord is also looking after the said business. The other two sons of the land -lord were students. The land -lord got the adjoining shop vacated from one Gaya Prasad and thereafter his son has started the business. A partition took place amongst the heirs of Suraj Lal and that the shop in question has come under his (Jamuna Prasad's) tenancy who alone is carrying on brasswares and utensils business. The other heirs of Suraj Lal had no concern with the said shop. He (Jamuna Prasad) (here -in -after called 'tenant') has no other shop in his possession. It is further alleged that the tenant has earned good -will in his business as he is doing the same there since long. In support of their respective contentions both the parties had filed affidavits and documents. The learned Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the shop in question was bona fide required by the land -lord for carrying on business and in case the permission is not granted under Section 21 of the Act the land -lord would suffer greater hardships as compared to that of the tenant. The tenant preferred an appeal against the said order of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court allowed the appeal and rejected the application moved under Section 21 of the Act. Hence the petitioner, has filed this writ petition for quashing the appellate order.
(3.) SRI Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the finding of the learned appellate court is a finding of fact and this Court in its writ jurisdiction would not interfere in the said finding of fact. It is true that in writ jurisdiction this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the finding of fact given by the appellate court but if the lower court has arrived at such a finding on wrong legal assumption or approach the said finding would not be conclusive finding of fact. 4 -A. The land -lord had moved application under Section 21 of the Act alleging that he and his sons would carry on business in the shop in question. At the time when the application was moved in 1980 the two sons of the land -lord were students. Subsequently the second son had to seek employment as daily wager in the Public Works Department and the third son could not persue his studies after Class IX as is evident from the supplementary affidavit filed by the land -lord in this Court.;