SHYAM BAHADUR GUPTA Vs. JAI HIND PRAKASH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition questioning the validity of order dated 20.01.2007 passed by Prescribed Authority, allowing release application of landlord under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order dated 05.09.2008 affirming the aforementioned order in rent Appeal no. 33 of 2007 preferred under Sec. 22 of the said Act.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that landlord filed application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 giving therein details of his family members and then proceeded to mention that his younger son Yogesh Kumar Goel was graduate and intends to independently settle himself, as such for his settlement premises under tenancy was bona fidely required. It was also mentioned that as stop gap arrangement, said son of the landlord was assisting the landlord in running business. Said release application was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement on 24.11.2004. After the said written statement was filed, from both the sides' evidence was led. The Prescribed Authority on 20.01.2007 found the need of landlord to be bona fide and genuine one and in comparative hardship front also gave finding in favour of landlord, and passed decree of ejectment. Against the same petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 33 of 2007, which has been rejected on 05.09.2008. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case both the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority, both, have totally misdirected themselves while considering the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.