CHHOTAN LAL SAINI Vs. KULDEEP BATLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Sec. 21 of U.P. Act No.13 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent-landlord for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority allowed the said application filed under Sec. 21 of the Act by order dated 7.10.2011. 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. Appeal No.28 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by order dated 5.5.2012. 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 is a member of joint family having a large number of properties and carrying on a number of businesses. He further submitted that the need of the respondent is neither bonafide nor genuine and comparative hardship tilts in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.