- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the respondent-landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur for release of a portion of house No. 7/805 situate in Mohalla Badtala Yadgar Unchcha Tilla District Saharanpur under the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the release application. The Prescribed Authority after going through the pleadings and evidence on record vide order dated 11-4-2001 dismissed the release application.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order dated 11-4-2001 of the Prescribed Authority the respondent- landlords filed Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2004 before the appellate Court which was allowed vide order dated 19-11-2005, hence this writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 19-11-2005 of the appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and based on non-consideration of material evidence on record as such the same is liable to be quashed and that the appellate Court has not considered that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the respondent-landlords for the need of his son Jai Kumar for commercial purpose whereas the accommodation in question is a residential one. The bar is provided by proviso 3 (2) of Section 21 of the Act on this point and the Prescribed Authority has given his clear finding on this point provided by law and not taking it into consideration by the appellate Court is wholly wrong, illegal, willful and lack of judicial consciousness.;