LALTA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and is directed against the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority dated 22.2.1995 and 31.5.95 respectively. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application filed by the landlords-respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) SINCE the contesting respondent filed caveat through Sri A. K. Gupta, Advocate who has also filed counter-affidavit, in reply of which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of the parties, I have heard this matter finally at this stage.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, recorded clear and categorical findings on the questions of need and hardship in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It was held that Sri Rajendra Kumar, the respondent No. 5 was jobless, his need for the shop in dispute was bona fide and genuine, that no other shop was available to him while the petitioner had several alternative shops and accommodations at his disposal where he could easily shift his business. THE finding on the question of comparative hardship was also recorded in favour of landlords. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the Prescribed Authority was pleased to allow the release application by its order dated 22.2.1995.