CHANDA Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record of the case.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner challenges, the validity of order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 26.3.1998 and the order dated 17.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 2 Prescribed Authority.

(3.) It appears that respondent No. 3 Smt. Haideri filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for release of the building in question on the ground of personal need and hardship. The petitioner, who happened to be the tenant in the building in question, objected to it and contested the release application. It was pleaded that neither the need of respondent No. 3 was genuine nor she was likely to suffer hardship in case the release application was rejected. Parties produced evidence for and against. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the release application vide the judgment and order dated 17.6.1986. Petitioner challenged the validity of the said release order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 27.9.1991. Challenging the validity of the judgments and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and appellate authority, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 175 (R/C) of 1991. Smt. Chanda v. Smt. Haidari and others. This Court affirmed the findings recorded by the authorities below on the question of genuine need of respondent No. 3 but the orders passed by the appellate authority was reversed on the ground of non-consideration of comparative hardships which was likely to occasion to the parties in case the release application was allowed or rejected. On the said question, no specific finding was recorded, therefore, the writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 24.9.1997. The orders passed by the appellate authority dated 27.9.91 was quashed and the case was sent to the appellate authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. The appellate authority in pursuance of the order passed by the Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that in case of rejection of release application, the landlady would suffer comparatively greater hardship than the tenant in case the building is not released in her favour.