A.B. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated 30.9.1994 (Annexure (9) to the petition) passed by the respondent No. 2, Prescribed Authority, Moradabad directing a writ of possession to be issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 the landlord. Facts which need to be mentioned in brief are that a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was filed by the respondent -landlord on 25.7.1980 on the ground that he required the accommodation in the petitioner's tenancy in House No. 56 Arya Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad for occupation by himself and his family members. The application was contested by the petitioneR.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority who initially heard the release application dismissed the same by his order dated 3.11.1991. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the District Judge. On writ Petition No. 1088S of 1983 being filled by the respondent, this Court on 6.12.1985 setting aside the appellate judgment remanded the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 6.9.1986 again dismissed the appeal. On writ Petition No. 16225 of 1986 filed by the respondent this Court vide order dated 2.3.1989 (Annexure '4') again remanded the matter to the appellate court with the following order: In the result, the petition is allowed, The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 3rd November, 1981 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 6th September, 1986 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh on the question of bonafide need of the petitioner landlord after excluding the objections filed by the tenant against the release application as also the evidence filed on his behalf. The Appellate Authority shall finally dispose of the appeal within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it as it is pending decision for a very long time. Parties are directed to bear their own cost. The petitioner preferred a special Leave Petition against the said order. The Supreme Court by order dated 8.1.1990 granted leave and asked this Court to give its own finding on the question of bonafide need of the landlord. This Court recorded its finding dated 22.8.1990 (Annexure '5') to the effect that the landlord's need is bonafide in respect of the accommodation in dispute and the finding to the contrary recorded by the Appellate Authority is arbitrary and manifestly erroneous.
(3.) THE appeal was then disposed of by the Supreme Court by the following order (Annexure '6'): At the time of preliminary hearing an order was passed on 8.1.1990 to the following effect: - - Leave granted. Counsel heard. After hearing learned counsel we think desirable that the High Court should give its own finding on the question of the bonafide need of the landlord for the premises in question on the entire evidence on record but without going into the question of relative hardship or taking that factor into account. The evidence will be re -appreciated by the High Court only to the extent permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court is requested to send its findings on the aforesaid issues as early as possible and preferably, within six months from the receipt of this ordeR.The appeal to be placed on the board after the finding is received. Pursuant to this order, the High Court has rendered a finding concluding that on the face of the record the landlord's need is clearly bonafide in respect of the accommodation in dispute. In view of this finding, the claim of the landlord will have to be upheld. However, what is argued before us is the High Court had not kept itself within the precincts of Article 226 and it has appreciated the evidence and set aside the concurrent findings. We are unable to agree.;