GULSHAN Vs. XIX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, and is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by the landlady -respondent No. 3 and the order dated 23.11.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The release application was filed by the respondent No. 3 claiming that the shop in dispute was required by her for settling her son who was claimed to be a disabled person. She wanted to settle her son in the business of running a P.C.O. and photostat shop, which he could easily look after and carry on. It was also pleaded that in case the application filed by the respondent No. 3 is rejected, she would face comparatively greater hardship than the hardship which may be occasioned to the petitioner in case the release application is allowed. The release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. He denied the claim of respondent No. 3 that her son was capable to carry on the aforesaid business. It was pleaded that her need was neither bona fide nor genuine and that in case the application is allowed, the petitioner shall suffer comparatively greater hardship. In support of their cases parties have produced evidence, oral and documentary. After going through the entire evidence on the record the Prescribed Authority has recorded findings on the question of bona fide and genuine nature of the need of respondent No. 3 and also on the question of comparative hardship against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent No. 3. Having recorded the said findings, which were based on relevant evidence on the record, the release application was allowed by judgment and order dated 30.6.1999. Challenging the validity of the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 23.11.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally in recording the findings on the question of genuineness and bona fide nature of need of the landlady and also on the question of comparative hardship of the parties. It was also urged that it was not pleaded by the landlady that her son was unemployed and that he was to be settled in the aforesaid business.

(3.) THE Authorities below, as stated above, have recorded concurrent findings on the question of bona fide and genuine need of the respondent No. 3 - -landlady, as well as on the question of comparative hardship. The said findings are based on relevant evidence on the record and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The question as to whether the son of the landlady was unemployed or not was neither raised nor pressed before the authorities below by the petitioner. The said question involved factual controversy, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said question/controversy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.