BASANTI BAI Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 18th January, 1988, passed by the appellate authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'4' to the writ petition, whereby the appellate authority has allowed the appeal filed by the tenant-respondent and set aside the order dated 8th May, 1986 by which the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, filed by the landlord-petitioner was allowed by the prescribed authority.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord submitted that once the appellate authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine, it was not open to the appellate authority to arrive at the conclusion that the tenanted accommodation, release whereof is sought for, would not be sufficient to meet the need of the landlord and therefore, the rejection of the application of the landlord on this ground is wholly erroneous. It is this part of the order, which is particularly challenged apart from the findings recorded by the appellate authority.