M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays for quashing of the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 25 -5 -1991. By this order the respondent No. 1 has reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1978, hereinafter called as 'the Act'. The landlord, who is respondent No. 2 in this case, seems to have applied for eviction of the tenant -petitioner from the building under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority had found that the landlord's need for the house was not bona fide and had also held that the petitioner will be put to a great hardship if he was evicted from the premises in question. On appeal the Respondent No. 1 reversed the findings of the Prescribed Authority on both counts. It held that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and the landlord would face hardship if the tenant is not evicted from the premises in question. The question of comparative hardship was, therefore, found in favour of the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE tenant has now started a third inning by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that the landlord's need is not genuine or bona fide because he has sufficient accommodation in the house of his father which he can use for his residential purpose. This argument is apparently based on the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority whereby he rejected the claim of the landlord. It is pleaded that no portion of the house is dilapidated. The first floor of the house is alleged to have been damaged by the landlord, which was ordered to be repainted by a competent authority under Section 28 of the Act. The view taken by the appellate authority with regard to the comparative hardship is also said to be bad because it is completely contrary to the factors which, according to the petitioner, are guidelines under Rule 16 of the rules framed under the Act. The landlord is said to have alternative accommodation whereas the tenant has none. It is submitted that the findings of the respondent No. 1 are illegal and contrary to law. The findings of the Prescribed Authority are said to be perfectly legal, which could not be disturbed. The question of bona fide need and question of comparative hardship have been decided in favour of the landlord in violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 has relied on some evidence, which is not admissible. Counter -affidavit is filed by the landlord. He has denied the averments made in the writ petition and stated that before the Prescribed Authority he had made an application for appointment of a Commissioner so that spot inspection of the house could be conducted. In the sale -deed also the house was said to be dilapidated and in bad condition. The Prescribed Authority had ignored this from consideration but the appellate authority relied on it. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the appellate Court. The report of the Nagar Adhikari in respect of the condition of house is said to be not bad but was made on the application of the landlord.
(3.) IT is also contended that in view of the dilapidated condition of the house the house -tax was exempted on the house. On other questions of fact also there is variance between the landlord and tenant and both have tried to interpret the facts emerging from the pleadings before the trial court and before the appellate Court according to their own convenience.;