Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 3.5.1991, allowing the release application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26.11.1991, affirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) The facts in brief are that respondents 3 and 4 filed application for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegation that they were landlords of the premises in question of which the petitioner is a tenant. It was stated that Smt. Champa Shah, respondent No. 3 was working as a teacher but she has retired on 30th June, 1988. She had taken an accommodation on rent after retirement but the landlords are pressing her to vacate the same. She has also a daughter Km. Sangita and she requires the accommodation to provide her education at Nainital. She is unable to keep her in a hostel at Lucknow. Smt. Durga Devi though lives at Lucknow but often comes at Nainital. The petitioner filed objection alleging that the need of the respondents is not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority found the need of respondents 3 and 4 bona fide for residential purpose. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 3.5.1991 and the appeal against this order has been dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the finding on the question of bona fide need and the comparative hardship recorded by the authorities below.
(3.) Sri S. Dhulia, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by the authorities below. I have perused the impugned order and do not find that there is any illegality in the findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2.;