Heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
This is tenants writ petition against the order of release passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 72 by the appellate court.
The release application of the landlords was rejected on the ground of comparative hardship but after finding the need of the landlords to be genuine in bona fide. Aggrieved by the rejection of their release application, the landlords filed an appeal. However, no appeal or any cross-objection was preferred by the tenants against the finding of bona fide need of the landlords.
The appellate court reiterated and confirmed the finding with regard to bona fide need and simultaneously on the consideration of evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the landlords are likely to suffer greater hardship and therefore, the issue of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the landlords.
It is the aforesaid finding on comparative hardship, which has been attacked by the petitioners in the writ petition.
The petitioners/tenants had not adduced any evidence to show that they ever made any effort to search out any alternative accommodation during the pendency of the release proceedings. On the other hand on behalf of the landlords sufficient material was brought on record to prove that alternative suitable accommodations were available which the petitioners/tenants can take on rent or otherwise. Thus, following the precedents the lower appellate court held that in the event the release application is rejected the landlords would suffer comparatively more hardship than the petitioners/tenants as they have alternative accommodation also in the shape of a house in the ownership of the father of Smt. Kabiran. The aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact and there is no wrong application of law in returning the said finding.
In view of above, I do not find that any error has been committed by the lower appellate court in allowing the release application.
No other points other than the point of comparative hardship has been argued before him.
It may be relevant to note that the order of release passed by the lower appellate court has already been implemented and has been given effect to inasmuch as the possession of the disputed one room premises has been handed over to the landlord.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2010 piyush