J P GUPTA Vs. HEERA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16th February, 2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by the appellate authority under the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts are that Smt. Heera Gupta, respondent, and her husband Kishori Lal Gupta were the landlords of the accommodation in dispute which is a shop. On 8th March, 1984 both the landlords filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against two tenants, the petitioner and one Hukamchand jointly for the release of both the shops. It appears that on 17th May, 1984 the application against both the tenants, namely Hukamchand and the present petitioner J. P. Gupta was allowed ex parte and both the shops were directed to be released in favour of landlords.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Kedar Nath Agarwal v. Dhanraj Devi, 2005 (1) JIC 115 (SC) : (2004) 8 SCC 76, and the decision reported in JT 1998 (6) SC 527, B. Kanda Swami Raddiar v. O. Gomathi Ammal, has submitted that subsequent events which came in existence during the pendency of appeal or release application ought to have been considered by the authorities which admittedly having not done so and arbitrarily arrived at the finding that the need of the landlords is bona fide deserves to be quashed. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners further laid stress on his argument that from the abundance of evidence on the record which are either not considered or have been cursorily referred to without considering the same the prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlords is bona fide is, without application of mind and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above. So is the order of the appellate authority, who has affirmed the findings without considering the evidence on record.