(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority passed under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, directing the petitioner's eviction from the accommodation in question and the order of the IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
(2.) SRI G. C. Ghildayal, the petitioner is a practising Advocate of this Court. He is one of the tenants of the premises of building No. 11, Mayo Road, Allahabad, since 1948. There are two other tenants besides the applicant who are occupying the portion of the said building as tenants. Justice Hiralal Kapoor, who is landlord of the premises in question, filed an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the petitioner as well as the two other tenants namely, Sri S. Williams and Lalmani Singh, before the prescribed Authority, Allahabad, for their eviction on the ground that he bona fide required the building in question for his own residence and occupation. Certain technical objections were raised against the application with the result Justice Kapoor made amendments in the original application and three separate applications were filed against the petitioner as well as against the two other tenants. The petitioner as well as the other two tenants contested the application on a number of grounds. The prescribed Authority held that the landlord's need was genuine and bona fide and pressing as compared to the tenants' need and requirement, therefore he allowed the landlord's application and directed the petitioner's eviction by his order dated 4th November. 1974. The petitioner and the other two tenants filed three separate appeals before the Appellate Authority. All the three appeals were disposed of by the Additional District Judge by a common order dated 16th January, 1975. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority and upheld the order of eviction. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition challenging the aforesad two orders of the Appellate Authority and the Prescribed Authority directing the petitioner's eviction from the premises in question.
(3.) SRI Jagdish Swarup, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord urged that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority about the bona fide and genuine need of the landlord are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings, the two authorities have considered the matter at length and compared the need of the tenant and the landlord, their orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity. He further urged that the various factors prescribed in Rule 16 are not necessary to be considered by the Prescribed Authority in a case where the Explanation to Section 21 (1) of the Act was applicable and in the alternative he urged that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, considered the question of likely hardship to the tenant and the orders do not suffer from any patent error of law or fact.