V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition questioning the validity of the order dated 24.11.2000 passed by Appellate Authority, Xllth Additional District Judge, Agra allowing the appeal preferred on behalf of tenant in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to instant writ petition in brief are that petition­ers' are landlord of premises No. 29/1995 situated at Chhipitola, Agra. In the said premises in question and one Sikandar was tenant of shop in question at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. Said Sikandar died and Mohd. Ikram, Mohd. Yameen and Smt. Batulan are his legal heirs and representatives. Release application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the landlord on the ground that Dharmendra Kumar, petitioner No. 4 and Virendra Kumar pe­titioner No. 2 are sitting idle and they do not possess any shop and they intend to run goldsmith business. It was also specifically mentioned that sons of Ram Nath are also sitting idle and they have also experience of goldsmith. Release application filed was opposed by Mohd. Ikram and others and it was contended that shop in question was not at all bona fidly required and there are various shops in their possession and as such application be rejected. In the proceedings so undertaken Bengali Mai petitioner No. 1 filed his own affidavit mentioning therein that he has only one tenanted shop in House No. 29/106 situated at Chhipitola, Agra which is owned by late Sri Chiranji Lal Jain and in the said shop, business of goldsmith is being run by Sri Bengali Mai Petitioner No. 1 and Sri Sonpal Petitioner No. 2 and said shop is very small shop. Affidavit was filed by Dharmendra Kumar stating therein the facts as stated by Bengali Mai. Another affidavit was filed by Petitioner No. 1 on 17.3.1994 mentioning therein the details of family members and other subsequent facts. Rejoinder af­fidavit was filed and therein it was also stated that Jitendra Kumar and Virendra Kumar are not in employment. Again supplementary rejoinder affi­davit was filed giving factum of family members and inconveniences. After re­spective evidence has been led the Prescribed Authority on 23.8.1996 allowed the release application. Against the said order Rent Control Appeal No. 378 of 1996 was filed under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Said Appeal in ques­tion was allowed on 8.5.1997 and matter was remitted back. After remand order was passed joint affidavit was filed before Prescribed Authority by Bengali Mai, Jitendra Kumar and Sonpal and another affidavit was filed on 17.2.1998 by Bengali Mai, Jitendra Kumar and Sonpal. Thereafter Prescribed Authority on 10.8.1998 allowed the application returning finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of landlord. Against said order Appeal was preferred and said Appeal in question was allowed on 24.11.2000. At this junc­ture present writ petition has been filed. Pleading inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition is being taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI B.N. Agarawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case Prescribed Authority on the basis of mate­rial and evidence which was available on record recorded categorical findings of facts on the issue of bona fide need and comparative hardship and thereafter Appellate Authority on mere surmises and conjuncture suggesting that shops were already available to the petitioners, proceeded to non-suit the bona fide need of petitioners and totally misdirected itself on the question of compara­tive hardship as such unwarranted and unreasonable view has been taken as such order passed by Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed.;