- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Virendra Kumar alias Chhote Lal, tenant has filed this writ peti tion challenging impugned judgment and order, dated 1-7-1999 (Annexure-22) passed by Appellate Authority under Sec tion 22 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act ).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that landlord-respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (registered as P. A. No. 16 of 1989) of accommodation in question wherein petitioner was tenant and using the said accommodation for commercial purposes. Primarily landlord claimed, he needed the accommodation for setting himself. By means of present judgment, I do not propose to go in detailed facts as the same are not necessary. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application by means of judg ment and order dated 22- 9-1995 (Annexure 19 ). Being aggrieved, landlord filed appeal, as stated above, under Section 22 of the Act and the same has been allowed by means of aforesaid judgment and order dated 1-7-1999.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri R. B. Mishra on behalf of petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Gupta appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. On behalf of petitioner it is sub mitted that apart from various infirmities in the impugned judgment, manifest error apparent on the face of record is that the Appellate Authority while discussing the question of bonafide need of the landlord, has referred and taking into account the ingredients of Rule 16 (1), sub-clauses (b) and (c) of the Rules framed under the Act which were not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case for a commercial building.;