MANDAN LAL Vs. IST ADDL D J MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against the order passed by the prescribed authority and released the disputed shop in favour of the respondent-landlord.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant of the disputed shop and contesting respondent is the landlord. THE landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the disputed shop on the ground that the applicant is carrying on business of cloth merchant in the partnership of his father and now he wants to set up his business independently, therefore, he needs the disputed shop for the purpose and further that the tenant is having three shops in the same market and the disputed shop is in fact vacant and no business is being carried out from the disputed shop.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate authority mainly on the ground that the view taken by the appellate authority that the need of the landlord is bona fide, is not supported by any evidence and deserves to be set aside. On the question of comparative hardship it is submitted that applying the guide lines prescribed under Rule 16 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rule, 1972, the appellate authority has committed an error in holding that the need of the landlord is more pressing than that of the tenant, he, therefore, submitted that the order of the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and that of the prescribed authority deserves to be upheld. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further submitted by picking one sentence from here and there in order to press that the findings of the appellate authority suffer from error of law.