R. H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) INSTANT writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and is directed against the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority dated 22.2.1995 and 31.5.95 respectively. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application filed by the landlords-respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) SINCE the contesting respondent filed caveat through Sri A. K. Gupta, Advocate who has also filed counter-affidavit, in reply of which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of the parties, I have heard this matter finally at this stage. Basic facts of the case giving rise to the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (landlords) filed the application for the release of the shop in dispute in their favour, which is situated in town Kasganj, district Etah. It was pleaded that the shop in dispute was needed for the use and occupation by Sri Rajendra Kumar, the respondent No. 5 who was jobless and wanted to establish his cloth business in it and except the shop in dispute, he had no other shop for establishing the said business. On the other hand, the opposite party-petitioner had several alternative accommodations available to him, in which he could shift and establish his Khandsari business. It was alleged that the petitioner was a well-to-do person and owned several building at Kasganj which were specified in the application. Petitioner also owned a brick-kiln and two trucks. Actually the shop in dispute used to remain closed, therefore, if the same was released in favour of the landlords, the petitioner would not suffer any hardship. Release application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was opposed by the petitioner who denied the pleas taken by the said respondents and their claim for the release of the shop in dispute, in their favour. It was pleaded that Rajendra Kumar was not jobless and he could establish his proposed cloth business in the other alternative accommodations which were stated to be available to him, plea of hardship was also taken. The parties in support of their claims produced evidence, documentary and oral.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, recorded clear and categorical findings on the questions of need and hardship in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It was held that Sri Rajendra Kumar, the respondent No. 5 was jobless, his need for the shop in dispute was bona fide and genuine, that no other shop was available to him while the petitioner had several alternative shops and accommodations at his disposal where he could easily shift his business. THE finding on the question of comparative hardship was also recorded in favour of landlords. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the Prescribed Authority was pleased to allow the release application by its order dated 22.2.1995. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 31.5.1996. The petitioner has filed the present petition, as stated above challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority.;