RAM SAJIWAN Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Sri B.K. Narayan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the two orders dated 9th April, 1985 and 11th September, 1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Fathepur and the IInd Additional District Judge, Fathepur, respectively under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulating of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, herein after called the Act.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found the need of the landlords to be bonafide. They have also recorded finding on the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlords. It cannot be disputed that once the need of the landlords is found to be bonafide and the finding on the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlords, the authorities would be well within their jurisdiction to allow the application under Section 21 of the Act. The findings on the issues of bonafide need and comparative hardship are primarily the findings of fact. For so long as these findings are not demonstrated to be perverse no interference therewith is permissible.