- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority whereby both the authorities have allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the accommodation in question in favour the landlord.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the son of the landlord has grown up and has passed by his M. Com examination. He wants to start his own business in the shop in dispute. THErefore, to establish his son the landlord bona fide requires the shop in question and the need of the landlord is more pressing as compared to that of the tenant inasmuch as the tenants are carrying on business of brick kiln. It was, therefore, prayed for that the shop in question be released in favour of the landlord. It is also alleged by the landlord that when the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises they demanded Pagri (premium) for vacating the same. The aforesaid application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the landlord, in fact wanted to enhance the rent to which the tenant has not agreed, therefore, this application has been filed for mala fide intention. The tenant has further taken up the case that in fact the son of the landlord for whose need the application was filed is employed in a private firm at Delhi and is drawing salary of Rs. 10,000 per month, whereas in the shop in question the son of the tenant is carrying on his practice of Dentist and is earning his livelihood. In case the shop in question is released in favour of the landlord the tenant is to vacate it and will suffer a loss. Before the prescribed authority both the parties have adduced their respective evidence. After considering the case set up by both, landlord and tenant, and on the basis of evidence on the record the prescribed authority has arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and more pressing as compared to that of the tenant. Thus the prescribed authority released the shop in question in favour of the landlord.
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby the tenant preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. Thus this writ petition challenging the order passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before me that the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have committed error, which is manifest error of law inasmuch as they have come to the conclusion that the son of the landlord, for whose need the release of the shop was prayed for, was in fact employed in a private firm at Delhi but still the shop in question was released. Thus the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority on both the questions, namely, bona fide requirement as well as comparative hardship deserve to be quashed and the application filed by the landlord deserves to be set aside and application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act deserves to be rejected. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have considered this aspect of the argument and have recorded a finding that it has been categorically stated that the son of the landlord for the time being had joined the job which is the job of a private company so that he may not sit idle and as soon as the shop was release he would start his own business. This finding of the prescribed authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority along with the finding recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord as well as comparative hardship. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited one sentence or the other from the judgment here and there and tried to press that the findings arrived by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority deserve to be quashed.;