JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition was dismissed by me vide my order dated 4th July, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioners, who are landlord of the shop in question, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred, to as the 'Act'), for the release of the shop in question on the ground that they want to set up their one of the sons, who is still unemployed and has not studied more, in business of kirarta and for that purposes the need is bond fide. It has also been stated in the application that the tenant has sufficient accommodation at his disposal where he can comfortably shift and thus the tenant will not suffer hardship and the comparison of the hardship at all would be in favour of the landlord.
4. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and evidence. The prescribed authority after considering the material evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties rejected the application of the landlord, vide his judgment and order dated 8.3.1994. Annexure-21 to the writ petition, and recorded a categorical finding that the landlord have not been able to establish bona fide need and even in the comparison of the hardship, tilt would be in favour of the tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority after giving full opportunity to the parties concerned, vide its judgment and order dated 14.2.1995, Annexure-24 to the writ petition dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority both on the question of bona fide requirement as well as on the question of comparative hardship. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-landlord Sri Atul Dayal argued that the approach of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority in arriving at the finding that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and that the comparative hardship tilt in favour of the tenant is not correct and these findings deserve to be set aside. He further tries to assail the findings by putting one affidavit or the other, or other pieces of evidence to the effect that the findings suffer from the manifest error of law. I have considered the arguments and perused the documents and also the decisions, which have been referred to by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-landlord. These decisions, in my opinion, have been decided on the facts of respective case. So far as the question of law is concerned, it is settled and re-affirmed by a recent decision of Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Stta Ram, 2001 (3) AWC 1997 (SC) : 2001 (2) ARC 1 Para 9 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :
"9. The position is too well-settled to admit of any controversy that the finding of fact recorded by the filial court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record."
5. In the present case, the findings recorded by the prescribed authority were affirmed by the appellate authority. In this view of the matter and in view of the binding precedent of Apex Court, I am of the opinion that since nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners-landlord that the appellate authority or the prescribed authority has committed any manifest error of law or that the finding recorded by them are perverse. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.