GHANSHYAM BEHARI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. List has been revised. None appeared. Having perused the petition it transpires that a release application (case No. 11 of 1989) was filed before the Prescribed Authority, Ballia, under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein called as the "act") on the ground that the landlords, family had swelled and that Smt. Indu Srivastava (wife of the applicant No. 1) was a graduate who has learnt type- writing but she was idle, could not get a job and hence she wants to start a typewriting in stitute in the house in question.

(2.) AFTER the parties have led evidence, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide judgment and order dated 10- 9-1991 held that the case of the landlord was bona fide, and genuine and that com parative hardship was also led in favour of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority directed that two years rent may be paid to the defendant as a compensation.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed. THE above impugned judgment and order dated 16-4-1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. Case is being sent back to Respondent No. 1 Dis trict Judge, Ballia for deciding Appeal No. 6 of 1991 in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .