- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel ap pearing for the contesting respondent.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of proceed ings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short 'the Act'. The landlord applied for release of the building in question on the ground of personal need and hardship. It is not neces sary to state the facts as pleaded in the release application in detail as they have already been given in the judgment of the appellate authority. It will suffice to state that the Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application filed by the landlord vide its judgment and order dated 27. 7. 1994. Ag grieved by the said order the Landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority taking into con sideration the materials on the record recorded clear and categorical findings on the question of need and hardship in favour of respondent No. 2 vide its judgment and order dated 22. 2. 1996 allowed the appeal and release application. The petitioner, who was the op posite party in the courts below and the tenant in the building in question, filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22. 2. 1996. Shri B. D. Madhyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the need as set up by the landlord in his applica tion for release cannot be said to be genuine and bona fide. It is asserted that the dispute between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law cannot form reasonable basis for det ermination of the need and hardship in fav our of the landlord. It is simply the wish and desire to get the building vacated and not the bona fide need. He has also asserted that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was more than his residential requ irements. The findings recorded by the appellate authority were stated 10 be perverse.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate authority are findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on the record and are not amenable to the jurisdic tion of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further urged that it is well settled in law that the strained relationship between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law can form the basis of need referred to in cl. (a) of sub- section (8) of Section 21 of the Act. In support of his submission he has relied upon the decision in the following cases: (1 ). Shri Dau Dayal v. Vth Addl. District Judge, Aligarh and another, 1981 ARC 503. (2) Dr Jamuna Datt Tewari v. The 2nd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, 1982 ARC (1) 92. (3) Savitri Devi v. IXth Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and another, 1989 ARC (J) 138. (4) Pyare Lal v. XIIth Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1990 ARC (1) 157. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties,;