- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator respondent No. 3 have been heard. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 7.2.92 of the prescribed authority releasing the accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 3 (Landlord) under Sec. 21(1)(b) of Act 13 of 1972 and order dated 2.8.94 of the IVth Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur, confirming the same.
(2.) Release was sought by the respondent (Landlord) on the ground that the premises in question which was built more than 70 years ago is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and re-construction. He also contended that he has got prepared an estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction, has prepared and submitted to the local authority concerned, a plan which of conforms to the bye laws and has got the financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. The petitioner contested the release application and denied all the aforesaid contentions. Both the prescribed authority and the appellate court found the contentions of the respondent (Landlord) established by the evidence on record.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below suffers from a manifest error of law or is a result of non application of mind, is not borne out from the facts and circumstances. It has specifically been found on a thorough scrutiny of the evidence led by both sides including the reports of the architects of the sides that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and does not require demolition and new construction. Being a finding based on a consideration of all the relevant materials on record, it is not open to re-assessment in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;