(1.) This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against the order dated 24.8.2002 passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act and released the accommodation in favour of the respondent-landlord and directed for eviction of the tenant.
(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in dispute in his favour as the landlord requires the same for occupation by his son who has finished his education and landlord wanted to settle down him in agricultural profession in the town of Lavanya in Tehsil-Sardhana, district Meerut where the accommodation in dispute is situated. The respondent-landlord has further set up the case that he has no accommodation where his son can reside at Lavanya, where his son can live and carry on the occupation of agriculture at Lavanya which is at a short distance from the city of Meerut. On the question of comparative hardship the landlord set-up the case that the petitioner-tenant has another accommodation in his possession where he can reside which is also at a short distance from the accommodation in dispute. This application filed by the landlord has been contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. In his written statement the petitioner-tenant has submitted that in fact the landlord does not require any accommodation for settling his son in agricultural profession and further that the landlord has no requirement but to say bona fide requirement. On the question of comparative hardship, the tenant has submitted that the landlord is comfortably living with his family in the city of Meerut including his son for whose requirement the accommodation is sought to be released which is at a very short distance from Lavanya where the accommodation in dispute is situated. Any one who wants to supervise the agricultural profession or who adopts the occupation of agriculture can daily visit from Meerut by his own conveyance which is at a very short distance. The tenant further submitted that in the event of accommodation being vacated by the tenant, as prayed for by the landlord, tenant will suffer more hardship than the landlord, in case, the release is refused, as the tenant has no other accommodation except the accommodation in dispute, where he is residing with his family. The tenant further set up the case that the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act has been filed on the previous occasion which has been dismissed on merit and the finding arrived at by the prescribed authority with regard to the bona Jide requirement will operate as constructive res judicata. The landlord also filed a Small Cause Courts Suit against the tenant which has ultimately been got dismissed by the tenant. It is therefore, submitted that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and from the conduct of the landlord it is apparent that the landlord somehow wants to evict the tenant.
(3.) The prescribed authority by the order dated 24.8.2002 dismissed the application for release filed by the landlord and arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. Aggrieved thereby the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority Under Section 22 of the Act. Before the appellate authority landlord submitted that the view taken by the prescribed authority regarding bona fide need is erroneous and so is the view regarding comparative hardship. It is also submitted by the landlord that from the material on record it is clear that the landlord's son, Zeeshan who could not study further, is unemployed and therefore, it is duty of the father to get his son settle down in some occupation. With the aforesaid object the landlord decided to settle down his son in the occupation of agriculture in the town of Lavanya, where the landlord owns sufficient agricultural land and Lavanya is at the distance of 15 Kms. from the city of Meerut and it is correct that the landlord is residing at Meerut but it is not possible to supervise the agricultural profession by his son while residing at Meerut and since the landlord owns the property in dispute, it has been decided by the landlord that the accommodation in dispute may got released where the landlord's son will reside and will supervise the agriculture. The appellate authority considered the case of the petitioner to the effect that the landlord in fact does not require any accommodation and the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. But after considering the material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the finding of the prescribed authority to the effect that the need of the landlord is not bona fide, is erroneous. On the other hand, the appellate authority arrived at the conclusion that the landlord bona fide requires the accommodation in dispute. On the question of comparative hardship the appellate authority again found that the view taken by the prescribed authority is erroneous Inasmuch as the tenant has not made any effort to find out some other alternative accommodation at Lavanya since after filing of the release application by the landlord. This clearly demonstrates that the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. The appellate authority therefore, set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the appeal of the landlord and released the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the finding of the appellate authority regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship of the landlord is erroneous but has failed to demonstrate that the finding of the appellate authority is either perverse or suffers from any error much less manifest error of law and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash and Anr. 2004 (6) SCC 682 : 2004 (2) SCCD 890, wherein the Apex Court has held that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal against the order passed by the authorities under the Act unles's the same are demonstrated to be either perverse or manifestly erroneous in law. As already held that the present is not a case where the finding arrived at by the appellate authority can be said to be either perverse or suffering from any error apparent on the face of record.