Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act').
(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under : "The respondent-landlord filed an application for the release of the accommodation in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act with the allegation that his family consists of himself, his wife and two sons who are unemployed and are to be engaged in business. The tenant can take some other accommodation. The petitioner contested the application by filing his written statement. The stand taken by the petitioner-tenant are that Arvind Kumar grandson of owner of the house in dispute Devi Saran has been collecting the rent on behalf of Devi Saran. Devi Saran, owner of the property in dispute, has large number of properties. Even with regard to Arvind Kumar who is collecting rent and may be covered within the definition of 'landlord', it is stated by the petitioner-tenant that Arvind Kumar is having a big factory known as Classic Collection in which Arvind Kumar and his two sons are actively engaged and the first floor of two properties in which Lohia Brass is tenant on the ground floor, the other portions are lying vacant. Apart from this, many other properties have been referred to by the petitioner-tenant which are in possession of Arvind Kumar. Thus, it is submitted by tenant that in fact, the petitioner-tenant is in the same business which is being carried out by Devi Saran and his grandson, Arvind Kumar therefore in fact there is a business rivalry which instigated the landlords to file release application."
(3.) The prescribed authority before whom the parties adduced the evidence, after exchange of the pleadings, has considered the respective case of the parties and arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and therefore the application by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was dismissed by the prescribed authority. Aggrieved thereby the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority reversed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and found that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that the tilt of comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. The appellate authority therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the proscribed authority and directed for release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred this writ petition.;