(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 24.8.1998 (Annexure -13 to the writ petition), passed by the prescribed authority/(Civil Judge), (J.D.) Mau, in P.A. Case No. 5 of 1993, whereby the application of the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed. The petitioner is further directed against the judgment dated 27.5.2000 (Annexure -14 to the writ petition) passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Mau passed in R.C. Appeal No. 150 of 1998, whereby the judgment of the prescribed authority was modified to the extent that the landlord -respondent will provide one godown to the appellant as alternative accommodation. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Kayasth Tola, Kasba Mohammadabad, District Mau, of which the respondents are owner and landlords. Application was filed under section 21(1)(a) of the Act setting up need of Durga Dutt (respondent No. 3) with the allegations that his two brothers, Pramod Kumar Gupta and Gyan Chand and his father Anant Prasad were carrying on separate business and Durga Dutt, after completing his education and marriage was to be established and, therefore, the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner was bona fide required. The petitioner contested the release application on various grounds that landlords have other vacant shops available for Durga Dutt, it was also contended that Anant Prasad father of Durga Dutt was old person and in fact Durga Dutt was carrying on business with his father in the shop in possession of the father, Anant Prasad. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case. The prescribed authority (vide judgment dated 24.8.1998) held that the need set up by the landlord is bona fide and upon comparing the hardships between landlords and tenant, it was further held that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in case, release application was not allowed. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal. The 3rd Additional District Judge, Mau, vide judgment dated 27.5.2000 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with the modification that one of the godown offered by the landlord may be released in his favour.
(2.) I have heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Narain, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has also not been able to point out any other or further discussion made by the authority with regard to bona fide need. This finding of bona fide need recorded by the appellate authority is only based on the finding recorded by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority has not applied its mind while recording the said finding. In the absence of a valid finding on the question of bona fide need he has made discussion on the question of comparative hardship above. This approach of the appellate authority is not in accordance with law and cannot be accepted.