B.K.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the owner landlords of the shop in dispute against the judgment and order dated 3.5.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Munsif I, Rampur, whereby the petitioner's application for release of the accommodation in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected and against the judgment and order dated 26.10.1985 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Rampur, by which the petitioners' appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed. Authority has been upheld. I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel of the respondent No. 3
(2.) THE learned counsel of the petitioners has argued that, while deciding the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has not considered the evidence led by the petitioners in correct perspective. As a result of non -consideration of the evidence, which established the petitioners' bonafide need as well as the comparative hardship, the learned Addl. District Judge has illegally dismissed the petitioner's appeal. It has further been submitted that the petitioners had made offer of an alternative accommodation to the tenant respondent No. 3. The courts below have wrongly and illegally not considered the petitioners' offer. The result of non -acceptance of offer is that the impugned judgments are rendered illegal and the same are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel has further submitted that the tenant respondent is carrying on the business of tailoring in the shop in question which is not of such magnitude that it cannot be shifted to the place offered by the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners propose to restart the business of sweetmeat and the place is best suited for the said business. The said aspect of the case if would have been considered correctly then certainly the courts below would have decided the dispute in petitioners' favour and held that their need is bonafide. The learned counsel has submitted that the whole conclusion recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner -landlords' need is neither bonafide nor genuine. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence. It cannot be said that the said finding suffers from either any manifest illegality or perversity. As such, the writ petition is liable to fail on this ground alone. In addition to the said point, the learned counsel has further argued that the courts below have after appreciation of evidence come to the conclusion that the petitioner -landlords are men of substantial means. They have other shops which have been let out on rent and the petitioners have been successful in getting shops released under the provisions of Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. In spite of having got the shops released, the petitioners have not reconstructed the same. They can do so to meet their requirements. Instead of doing that, the petitioners are pursuing the release application against the respondent. As such, it is wholly mala fide. As a result of this appreciation, the Prescribed Authority as well as the Addl. District Judge have held that the petitioner's need is not bonafide.
(3.) THE learned counsel has submitted that the learned Addl. District Judge has considered all the relevant evidence and also recorded finding that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of bonafide and genuine need. As regards the alternative accommodation is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that it was refused by the contesting respondent on valid ground. The Prescribed Authority has also considered and held that the offer is not bonafide and, in any case under Section 21 of the Act the relevant considerations for granting the relief have to be established by the petitioner landlords. The said finding is perfectly in accordance with law and as such the release application has rightly been dismissed and the appeal also has rightly been dismissed. No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out.;