MOHAMMAD ANISH Vs. ABDUL ZABBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHASHI Kant Gupta, J. An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 (in short "Act") was filed by the landlord for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application filed under Section 21 of the Act by order dated 3.11.2009. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 5 of 2009 and the same has been dismissed by order dated 15.4.2011. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship is illegal and arbitrary, and is based on a complete misleading of the case and misconception of legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective. It has been further submitted that the court below has wrongly held that the respondent-landlord is living in a rented accommodation although there were ample evidence on record that the landlord has his own house at Mohalla Ganesh Ganj. He further submitted that rent receipts issued were manufactured to establish the bonafide need of the landlord. He further submitted that the court below has not considered the parameters relating to bonafide need and comparative hardship in proper perspective.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that the landlord is residing in the rented house and does not have any other residential accommodation. The court below has recorded a categorical finding that the House No. 99 does not belong to the landlord and in fact it belonged to her mother. The court below has also came to the conclusion, on the basis of the record, that the petitioner has got his own house and can accommodate himself on the upper portion of the garage which is being used for residential purposes and further held that the petitioner, during the pendency of the release application, did not make any attempt to search any other accommodation.