TARA DEVI Vs. IIIRD ADDL D J ALLD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order of release in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the Prescribed Authority which order had been affirmed in appeal, the petitioner-tenant has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said orders.

(2.) I have beard Sri A. N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel representing, the contesting respondents.

(3.) THE order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged by the tenant in appeal. THE appellate authority endorsed the view of the Prescribed Authority. THE appellate authority further affirmed the finding on the question of the need for release bona fide, genuine and pressing, considering the report of the Commissioner and noticing that the tenant had not even suggested in her affidavit that the necessity of the landlord was not pressing and genuine or that the landlords have any other accommodation where they could shift. On the question of relative hardships the appellate authority recorded a finding that the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the dismissal of the release application would be greater as compared to the hardships likely to be suffered by the tenant.