MOHAMMAD AYUB Vs. TASLEEM KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Section 21(1)(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 bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application by order dated 28.02.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 04 of 2009 under Section 22 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 20.01.2012. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the landlord to be bonafide 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 bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not 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.

(3.) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed.