SAJIDA Vs. IIND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and is directed against the order passed by respondent No. 1 acting as appellate authority, allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the Act.

(2.) PETITIONER Haji Bakridan since deceased, filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act alleging that the was owner and landlord of the shop in question, which was let out to Ramroop, respondent No. 2 on 30.5.1958, when he used to reside at Burma. Petitioner came back to India from Burma in the year 1966 and wanted to settle his sons and grand children in business to be carried for the shop in dispute. He pleaded that his requirement for the shop in dispute was genuine and bona fide. Ramroop respondent No. 2 without permission of the petitioner sub-let the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3. He, therefore, will not face any hardship in the event the release application was allowed; but in case of its rejection, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss comparatively and greater hardship. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid release application, which was mainly contested by Shiv Kumar respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 admitted that he had already vacated the shop in question and now it was respondent No. 3, who was carrying on business in the same. Respondents No. 3, on the other hand, contended that the said application filed by petitioner was legally not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. In support of their contentions, the parties have filed oral and documentary evidence.

(3.) THE appellate authority by his order dated 18.11.1980 was pleased to allow the appeal. It would not be not out of place to state that although the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed by appellate authority, but the findings on questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the petitioner, were reversed, the appeal was allowed only on the ground that the application, filed by petitioner was legally not maintainable, therefore, petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 18.11.1980 in this petition.