KEWALA NAND BELWAL Vs. SAVITA SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by a prospective allottee Is directed against the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 in the proceedings under section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) where-under the accommodation in dispute had been released in favour of the land lord respondent No. 1 up-holding her claim that the said accommodation was genuinely required by her for business purposes and her need for the same was a bonafide one.

(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that on the receipt of a notice dated 15-9-1975 given by the outgoing tenant, the proceedings under section 16 of the Act were initiated In respect of the accommodation in dispute. On the occurrence of the vacancy, the petitioner applied for the allotment of the same In his favour. THE landlord on the other hand moved so application seeking the release of the accommodation in his own favour During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord died and thereafter his widow got the release application amended and was allowed to proceed with it and pressed for the release in her favour for doing the business of woolen hosiery, ready made garments, imitation etc Her claim however, was contested by the prospective allottee, the petitioner on various grounds and a large numbers of affidavits were filed on his behalf contesting the claim of the landlady regarding her alleged bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute. THE authorised officer vide the judgment and order dated 31-7-1985 granted the application for release holding that the building in question was bonafide required by the landlady and her need for the same was most genuine and bonafide. This order passed by the authorised officer was challenged by the prospective allottee by means of revision, filed under section 18 of the Act, which was heard and disposed of by the respondent No, 3 vide the judgment and order dated 17th September, 1987, whereunder agreeing with the finding of the delegated authority/authorised officer, the revision was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the concurrent findings recorded by the respondent No. 2 and 3 holding the requirement of the landlady in respect of the accommodation in dispute to be genuine and bonafide which findings have been returned after appraisal of the evidence and the materials brought on record and believing the Landlady's affidavit and the other affidavits filed on her behalf in spport of her claim. The learned counsel has tried to challenge the said findings on the ground that the authorities below committed manifest illegality in omitting to consider the large number of affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has also tried to urge that the findings are based on irrelevant considerations and the fact that the landlady had suppressed the material facts which could disentitle her from seeking the release of the accommodation in question had gone unnoticed,