Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.1990, passed by the Prescribed Authority, releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlady respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated 16.11.1995, passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner is a tenant of residential building bearing Municipal No. 4/1190/1 situated in Mohalla Qila Nawabganj, Saharanpur. Her husband migrated to Pakistan permanently with her only son and he deserted her. She is residing in the house of her sister's husband in building No. 4/1194 Qila Nawabganj, Saharanpur. She is suffering from T.B. disease. She is living with her minor daughter and does not want to live with her brother -in -law and, therefore, requires the building in dispute for occupation.
(2.) THE petitioner contested the application. It was stated that respondent No. 3 is in fact one of the co -sharers of the property in which she is residing. Besides it, there are house Nos. 4/081 and 4/1161 Qila Nawabganj, Saharanpur in which she has share. It was asserted that husband of respondent No. 3 did not migrate to Pakistan and she can live at Deoband, Saharanpur, where her husband is residing. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that respondent No. 3 has no share in property No. 4/1194 and other property suggested by the petitioner. The property in question belongs to one Smt. Afroz Jahan Begum. She executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 20.12.1989 regarding the disputed property and regarding property No. 4/1194 she executed a gift deed in favour of her sister's husband. This version has been accepted by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority. It has been found that respondent No. 3 has no share in other properties as suggested by the petitioner. It was found that respondent No. 3 was also suffering from T.B. The application was accordingly allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 3 was married to one Naim Mohammad Khan. He was residing at Deoband. Even if he migrated to Pakistan respondent No. 3 could reside in the accommodation where her husband was residing. The version of respondent No. 3 was that her husband deserted her. He migrated to Pakistan with his only son. Respondent No. 3 was left with her minor daughter. In these circumstances the need of respondent No. 3 to live in her own accommodation was bona fide. The view taken by respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to be perverse.
(3.) THE second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has share in house No. 4/1194. Respondents 1 and 2 both have recorded concurrent finding that she has no share in the property. It is a finding of fact and does not suffer from any manifest error of law.;