S.P.Srivastava - (1.) THIS writ petition by a prospective allottee Is directed against the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 in the proceedings under section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) where-under the accommodation in dispute had been released in favour of the land lord respondent No. 1 up-holding her claim that the said accommodation was genuinely required by her for business purposes and her need for the same was a bonafide one.
(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that on the receipt of a notice dated 15-9-1975 given by the outgoing tenant, the proceedings under section 16 of the Act were initiated In respect of the accommodation in dispute. On the occurrence of the vacancy, the petitioner applied for the allotment of the same In his favour. THE landlord on the other hand moved so application seeking the release of the accommodation in his own favour During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord died and thereafter his widow got the release application amended and was allowed to proceed with it and pressed for the release in her favour for doing the business of woolen hosiery, ready made garments, imitation etc Her claim however, was contested by the prospective allottee, the petitioner on various grounds and a large numbers of affidavits were filed on his behalf contesting the claim of the landlady regarding her alleged bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute. THE authorised officer vide the judgment and order dated 31-7-1985 granted the application for release holding that the building in question was bonafide required by the landlady and her need for the same was most genuine and bonafide. This order passed by the authorised officer was challenged by the prospective allottee by means of revision, filed under section 18 of the Act, which was heard and disposed of by the respondent No, 3 vide the judgment and order dated 17th September, 1987, whereunder agreeing with the finding of the delegated authority/authorised officer, the revision was dismissed. I have heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel representing the landlady respondent in opposition thereto and have carefully perused the record. On 28th September, 1992, learned Counsel for the petitioner moved an application seeking amendments in the writ petition with the purpose of bringing on the record certain developments which are said to have taken place subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, alleging that the subsequent events have material bearing on the controversy involved in the case and deserved to be taken notice of in the present proceedings. A counter affidavit in reply of the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application was filed by the land lady respondent. I had an occasion to consider in detail in my decision in the case M/s. Pharma Traders and others v. VII Additional District Judge and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19140 of 1989), decided on 16-10-1992, the question as to whether in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, events occurring subsequent to the passing of the impugned order can be taken notice of or not. Taking into consideration the nature of the facts sought to be brought on record in the present case and the ratio of the aforesaid decision, I am clearly of the opinion that this application is totally misconceived, and is hereby rejected
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the concurrent findings recorded by the respondent No. 2 and 3 holding the requirement of the landlady in respect of the accommodation in dispute to be genuine and bonafide which findings have been returned after appraisal of the evidence and the materials brought on record and believing the Landlady's affidavit and the other affidavits filed on her behalf in spport of her claim. The learned counsel has tried to challenge the said findings on the ground that the authorities below committed manifest illegality in omitting to consider the large number of affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has also tried to urge that the findings are based on irrelevant considerations and the fact that the landlady had suppressed the material facts which could disentitle her from seeking the release of the accommodation in question had gone unnoticed, Learned counsel for the respondent has however, urged that the petitioner prospective allottee had no right to put in a contest in the proceedings in question and is not entitled to be heard. He has further urged that the finding of the respondeat No 3 to the effect that the petitioner had no right to contest the claim of the landlady is fully justified and in this view of the matter, it has been urged that there was no necessity for the respondent authority to consider and evaluate the evidence and the materials brought on record by the prospective allottee, In the alternative, St Las been asserted that none the less the authorities below have considered the evidence and the materials brought on the record by the petitioner, but, for cogent reasons did not find them to be worthy of credence and have believed the evidence brought on record by the landlady. In these circumstances, it has been urged that no ground has been made out to disturb the findings arrived at by the authorities below on the basis of the appraisal of the evidence.;