Ajay Kumar Yog, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition challenging order of release under Section 21(1)(a) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called 'the Act'). Perusal of the impugned orders dated 4th December, 1997 and 3rd September, 1998 (Annexure -4 and 6 to the Writ Petition) passed by Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and consequently affirmed by Appellate Authority under Section 22 of the Act show that it was not seriously disputed that landlord (Respondent No. 3) is a Soldier within the meaning of the phrase comprised in Section 21(1) Explanation (iii) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority found that respondent No. 3 was retired from the post of Commander from Indian Army and he let out the accommodation in question apart from other accommodation since he did not require the same at that time as he was serving in the Defence Forces.
(2.) PRESCRIBED Authority, after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, appreciated evidence on record and considered entire material before it and thereafter came to the conclusion that need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and comparative hardship by rejecting release application will cause more hardship to the landlord as compared to the tenant in case release was not allowed. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/petitioner herein preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 33 of 1977 before the District Judge, Jhansi. The appellate Court has confirmed findings recorded by the Prescribed authority and appeal has been dismissed with costs (Annexure -6 to the writ petition).
(3.) THE legal grounds contained in Paragraph 28 of the petition show that the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the landlord had acquired two separate accommodations situate at 87, Shastri Marg, Cantonment, Jhansi. It has already come on record that the alleged accommodations were servant quarters, which were independent of the main building which is sought to be released. Appellate Court considered this aspect and rejected contention of the tenant. I fail to find any manifest error apparent on the face of record. No. other point has been pressed.;