JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These two connected writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, arising out of common order, challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 27th August, 1997 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 12th April, 1994 under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
2. The facts leading to the filing of petitions are that the petitioner Shri Raghubar Dayal and Shri Anand Kumar and others were two tenants. Shri Raghubar Dayal is the tenant of respondent No. 3, landlord. The landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. seeking release of the accommodation under the tenancy of Shri Raghubar Dayal for his bona fide personal requirement and another application was filed against another tenant Shri Anand Kumar. Both these cases were clubbed together by the Prescribed Authority and were heard and decided by a common order, after parties adduced their evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter before the Prescribed Authority. The main plank of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that since so called partition is not genuine partition and is only illusory one and the purpose of filing of the present application is to evict the tenants from the accommodation. It has also been suggested that since according to the partition, the original accommodation under the tenancy of Shri Raghubar Dayal stands bifurcated and the partition of the original tenancy now falls in the share of Shri Raghubar Dayal. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent No. 3 without impleading either co-sharer or landlords is not maintainable under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Prescribed Authority considered the aforesaid arguments and arrived at the findings thai the tenants have failed to establish that actually no partition had taken place and that since the actual partition was found to be correct, it cannot be said on the basis of assumption of the evidence that need is not bona fide ; the finding was arrived at by the Prescribed Authority after assessing the evidence on record. The Prescribed Authority further found that comparative hardship also tilts in favour of the landlord. He. therefore, allowed both the applications of the landlord filed against the tenants.
4. Aggrieved by the order, both the tenants filed two appeals before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and going through the evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority both on the question of bona fide need and also on question of comparative hardship.
5. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners Shri Raghubar Dayal and Shri Anand Kumar and others filed these petitions.
6. Before me. learned counsel for the petitioners argued the same point that findings regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship are perverse and are, therefore, liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of this Court in Ashoke Kumar Seth v. IVth Additional District Judge. Azamgarh and Ors., 1992 AWC (Supp) 449 : 1993 (1) ARC 93, this Court has held that :
"The findings given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the appellate court and the Prescribed Authority, on issues of bona fide need and comparative hardship of the parties are not either illegal or perverse. On the contrary, the reasons given for recording the said findings by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the question of partition in the family of the landlord and on genuine need and comparative hardship are fully borne out from the evidence on record. Besides in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is well settled, that such findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court.
It is well-settled that a memorandum depicting that there has been a settlement in the family does not require registration. In the present case the document filed by the landlord was held to be a memorandum of family settlement by the respondent No. 2 and consequently no registration was required and the said document was admissible in evidence. It was, therefore, rightly relied upon by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The findings with regard to the same, given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, cannot be said to be either illegal or incorrect. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have correctly held that the need of the landlord for the disputed shop was genuine and bona fide and the findings with regard to the comparative hardship of the parties is substantially correct and does not call for any interference by this Court."
7. In view of the aforesaid decision since against the concurrent findings as recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority, nothing has been shown before me that these findings are either perverse or not supported by evidence on record. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as affirmed by the appellate authority by citing decision of this Court in Saroj Kumar Jaiswal v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., 1991 (2) ARC 532, in view of the law declared by this Court that findings recorded by the appellate authority and Prescribed Authority which is said to be supported by evidence cannot be interfered. I am of the view that impugned orders do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. The petitions deserve to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
8. In view of what has been stated above the petitions are dismissed. The interim order/orders stands vacated.