RAIS ALI Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 26. 3. 1981 whereby the release application filed by the landlady-Respondent was allowed and the order of the appellate authority dated 28. 9. 1998 affirming the said order in ap peal. The landlady-Respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging that she is owner of House No. 88/29, Chamanganj, Kanpur and resides in a part of this house along with her family. The family consists of herself, her husband, five sons and three daughters. The accommodation available with the landlady consisting of one room, accommodation is hardly sufficient for her. The application was contested by the petitioners that the landlady is not the sole owner of the premises in dispute. The dis puted house is owned by Smt. Alimunnisa and others. The tenants denied that the need of the landlady is bona fide. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlady was bona fide and genuine. The release application was al lowed and the appellate authority has af firmed it.

(2.) I have heard Sri. S. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the Respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the concurrent findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority. From the perusal of the impugned orders 1 do not find any manifest illegality in the same.