- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Raj Kumar Gupta tenant of Shop No. 74, Rakesh Marg, Ghaziabad at the rate of Rs. 305/- per month has filed this petition challenging impugned judgment and order dated 08th July 1999 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad as well as judgment and order dated 12th February, 1999 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition) passed by Prescribed Authority, Ghaziabad (Respondent No. 2 ).
(2.) PRESCRIBED Authority rejected the release application (registered as P. A. Case No. 26 of 1994 Shri Bhagmal and another v. Ajay Kumar Gupta (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) filed by the tenants. Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1999 under Section 22, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XII1 of 1972) (for short called 'the Act') filed by Raj Kumar Gupta was dismissed. Both the Courts below con currently held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and comparative hardship likely to be suffered by landlord, on rejec tion of release application, will be more than the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant if release application was al lowed. Shri A. K. Sand, Advocate, repre senting petitioner submitted that the find ing on the question of bona fide need was vitiated in as much as none of the two Courts below recorded specific and categorical finding on the tenant's pleas that landlord had another Premises No. 585 wherein he had constructed shops and one of the said shops was available in vacant condition;
(3.) IN support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Paragraph 33 of the written statement (particular pages 41-42 of the Writ Paper Book), Paragraph 10 of the affidavit of Raj Kumar Gupta-petitioner (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition) (particular page 80 of the Writ Paper Book) Paragraph 2 of Addi tional Affidavit of Raj Kumar Gupta (An-nexure-12 to the Writ Petition), Memorandum of Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1999-Ground 2 (Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition) - (particular page 114of the Writ Paper Book) and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court dated 08th July 1999 (Annexure49 to the Writ Petition) - (particular Page 137 of the Writ Paper Book) to show |hat petitioner has been throughout urging and raising his grievance with respect to the Premises No. 585, but both tie Courts below, though referred to the said premises in the early part of their judgment, but ignored to record specific finding as to why the case of the tenant in respect of the said premises was not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in absence of categorical finding with regard to Premises No. 585, approach of the] Court below in allowing release application has been vitiated inas much as a favourable finding in favour of the tenant- petitioner on the point can very well change the ultimate decision in the case.;