- (1.) SHITLA Pd. Srivastava, J. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22-10-1997 and order dated 16-8-1995 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THE brief facts, for the purpose of the present writ petition, are that the landlord Brij Mohan Lai, respondent No. 3, filed a release application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. 8 Act No. 13 of 1972, in short hereinafter referred to as the Act only. THE grounds stated in the application was that he has retired with effect from 31-10-1985 and is lying idle and his expen ses are heavy due to the illness of his wife and he is going to start another business of the Sarrafa ; he is not getting any shop in the District of Shaharanpur, t herefore, the shop in dispute is required by him frbm which he could start business. The case was contested by the petitioner on the allegation that the landlord has no intention to start business in District of Saharanpur. He wants to settle down in America where one of his son has settled down and two sons are employed and they are staying out of Saharanpur; that the landlord is an old man and he is not in a position to start his old business ; that the landlord has a huge income from agricultural sources and from money lending business. He has fur ther stated that the entire family of the petitioner was dependent on the income from the business being done from the shop in dispute; he was the tenant for the last 37 years and has gained a good will. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application on 16-8-1995. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judg ment and order of the Prescribed Authority. This appeal was dismissed on 22-10-1997 by IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur. These two orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) THE grounds of attack to the aforesaid judgments are that there was no need of the applicant. Counted and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that from the evidence it was apparent that the landlord had no per sonal need to start the business but finding has been given against the evidence. His further contention is that a transfer ap plication was filed against the Presiding Officer but the court below has not con sidered the effect of the transfer applica tion. Learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the finding of fact has been recorded by the two courts below which does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Prescribed Authority has considered the evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that the applicant is an unemployed person and he is in need of the accommodation in question. He has also considered the comparative hardship and held that the tenant only sits on the shop in question. He does Dalali business and has not cared to such alternative accommoda tion therefore, the comparative hardship is in favour of the applicant. This findingof the Prescribed Authority was also con sidered by the lower appellate Court and it was affirmed.;