Satya Prakash Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1988 passed by IVth Addl. District Judge, Meerut and judgment and order dated 9th November, 1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Meerut. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. V.S. Saxena, and Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE brief facts stated in the writ petition are that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioner in respect of shop No. 11/4, Shahpeer Jadid, Rajput Quarters, Meerut City for release of the accommodation in question on the ground that the petitioner is carrying on the business of sale of tobacco at 11, Purva Ahiran, Meerut and opposite party No. 3 is the tenant in the disputed shop carrying cloth business. It was stated in the application that the petitioner is carrying on business of sale of tobacco in a shop which is very small one and he is feeling difficulties in storing the tobacco on account of small dimension of the shop, hence he is in great need of the disputed shop for storing tobacco. It is stated that the Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no bonafide need for the release of the disputed shop, because he has another shop known as Shiv Saree Bhandar in his possession. It is further stated that an appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed, hence he has filed the present writ petition. The ground of attack by the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority, as well as the appellate authority has not considered the evidence available on the record. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was carrying on the business of sale of tobacco in the rented accommodation and the accommodation in dispute was his personal property, therefore, the petitioner being landlord was legally entitled to get the shop in question released in his favour, reliance has been placed on the decision reported in Sardar Yasbant Singh v. IVth A.D.J. Kanpur, Nagar and others, 1995 (26) ALR 260. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that from the judgment of the Prescribed Authority it is apparent that he had not discussed any evidence available on the record, rather has passed the order simply on the basis of the inspection note made by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the finding is vitiated in law. The learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the finding of fact has been recorded by Prescribed Authority, regarding the benefit of pressing need of the petitioner and further that the petitioner has alternative accommodation with him, therefore, this finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the writ petition. His further contention is that the case relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as here the petitioner was not seeking release of the accommodation in question for his residence, rather he was seeking the relief for keeping in view the godown for tobacco, but there was no evidence on record to prove that the tobacco business of the petitioner has increased to such an extent that he cannot earn his livelihood without getting the accommodation in question. His further contention was that in view of the fact that there was two other shops in the petitioner's house, which were vacated earlier by the other tenants and were not utilised by the petitioner for business purpose, therefore, the petitioner had an alternative accommodation and was not having bonafide and pressing need for the present accommodation. From perusal of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority it is apparent that an inspection was made by the Prescribed Authority and at the time of inspection he found that the shop in possession of the petitioner is 12 x 9 feet having a store room and the disputed shop is 23 feet 8 inch x 9 feet and the applicant was 65 years of age and that the shop in question cannot be used as godown for keeping tobacco, rather the applicant has with him an alternative accommodation lying vacant after evicting his tenants, therefore, he can utilise the same as there is no comparative hardship to the petitioner. The Appellate Court has held that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that the landlord has already an accommodation, therefore, the need of the landlord, was neither bonafide nor pressing. From the statement contained in the writ petition it is apparent that the petitioner has stated nowhere that what evidence was available on record filed by the petitioner, which was not considered by the Prescribed Authority or by the Appellate Authority, nor any such evidence has been filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition. Thus it is not open to the petitioner's Counsel to urge that the evidence was not considered, rattier from the judgments of the two respondents it is apparent that the Prescribed Authority himself made a local inspection and the local inspection was sufficient to prove the genuine and pressing bonafide need of the parties. As such to my mind the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities cannot be set aside by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.;