RANI DEVI Vs. JAGDISH SARAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under section 21(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") was filed by the respondents-landlord for release of the disputed premises on the ground of bona fide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application by order dated 16.3.2010. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2010, under section 22 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 31.3.2011. Hence the present writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The Courts below have recorded a findings of fact that the landlord has a very big family. Respondent No. 1 Jagdish Saran Gupta is more than 75 years old and other family members, who are sons of the respondent No. 1 are also likely to attain the age of 60 years and are to retire from service and they have growing children. Respondent No. 1 is suffering from acute Arthritis cannot climb the first floor and requires ground floor accordingly.

(2.) The Courts below have specifically recorded the findings of fact on the basis of Amin's Report that tenants own and possess another building in which some rooms are in vacant condition which will satisfy the need of the tenants.

(3.) Both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact that the need of the landlord-respondents is bona fide and genuine and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord, and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the Courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the Courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The Appellate Court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the Courts below. Unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the lower Court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence.