- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Instant petition arises out of the proceedings under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short 'the Act' and is directed against the order passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 in exer cise of power under Sec. 22 of the Act.
(2.) RELEASE application was filed by the petitioner Gyan Chandra, who has died during the pendency of the present petition and after whose death his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place as the petitioners. In brief, it was pleaded by Gyan Chandra that the shop in dispute was needed for his personal use and occupation as he wanted to settle his son in business. The release application was opposed and contested by respondent No. 2, who denied the allegations made in the release application and pleaded that the need of Gyan Chandra for the shop in dispute was neither genuine nor bonafide. The Prescribed Authority after hear ing the parties and perusing the record of the case, recorded clear and categorical findings on the questions of need and hardship in favour of Gyan Chandra. The Prescribed Authority has recorded cogent reasons for the findings arrived at by it. After recording the said findings, the release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 5-12-81. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. The appellate authority al lowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. There after, the present petition was filed by Gyan Chandra in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has acted illegally in reversing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority without revers ing the findings recorded by the said Authority. It has also been urged that the appellate authority has, without critically examining the reasons recorded by the Prescribed Authority and without taking into consideration the facts, which were taken into consideration by the Prescribed Authority, substituted its own findings on the question of need and hardship. In sub stance it has been urged that reasons have not been recorded by the appellate authority to up set the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and arbitrarily and abruptly it has been held that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority could not be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate authority are findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Reliance in support of the said sub mission has been placed upon the decision in Revindra Singh and others v. III Addl. Distt. Judge, Faizabad, 1992 (2) A. R. C. 308.;