Syed Rafat Alam, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has come up for quashing of the judgment dated 16th August, 1995, contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition, passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and also the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 12.3.1997, contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition. The landlord made an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity. The Prescribed Authority having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties recorded a categorical finding that the premises in question is bonafidely required by the landlord for his occupation. The Prescribed Authority has also considered the comparative hardship between the parties and has recorded a finding in favour of the landlords. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 12.3.1997 while dismissing the appeal concurred the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the question of personal necessity of the landlord and held that the premises in question is bonafidely required by the landlord for occupation.
(2.) THE concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below on the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord cannot be disturbed in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error or illegality requiring interference under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;