MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 21 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act') was partly allowed to the extent that the tenant was directed to handover possession of two rooms out of the four rooms that had been given to him on rent by the landlord. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2006 by Which the Appeal filed by the landlord under section 22 of the Act for handing awer the entire tenanted premises was allowed and the Appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed.

(2.) SRI M. D. Singh Shekhar learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner con-tended that during the pendency of the Appeal, the landlord Shyam Lal died and in his place his five sons were substituted but the Court below misinter-preted the provisions of section 21 (7) of the Act and allowed the release application of the landlord even though the substituted heirs had not filed any application to amend the release application. He further submitted that the Appellate Court committed an illegality in releasing the entire tenanted premises particularly when the Prescribed Authority, on a proper consideration of the material on record, had released only two rooms in favour of the landlord.

(3.) SRI M. D. Mishra learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord, however, submitted that the application had been filed by the landlord under section 21 of the Act showing the need of his five sons and their children and also his five daughters one of whom was a widow and the other four were married who very often visited the applicant and in such circumstances, the two sons in whose share the tenanted premises fell could prosecute the application under section 21 (7) of the Act and these two sons had also filed a detailed affidavit indicating their separate needs. He also submitted that the finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship that has been recorded by the Appellate Court is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence which needs no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.