PANNA LAL SONKAR Vs. SWAMI NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Sec. 21 of U.P. Act No.13 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need to establish his two educated unemployed sons in business.After exchange of pleadings and evidence, the Prescribed Authority allowed the said application filed under Sec. 21 of the Act by order dated 28.7.2011.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 22 of the Act which was registered as P.A. Case No.95 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by order dated 11.10.2011. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the court below on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship is based on a complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the evidence available on record in right perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent-landlord has got three shops in his possession which are sufficient to establish his sons in business and satisfy their needs. It was further submitted that the Respondent landlord is doing business along with his sons in two shops while the third shop is lying vacant.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and has submitted that the courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact holding the need of the landlord to be genuine and bonafide, and also found the comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. He further referred to the Amin Report in support of his contention.