JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners-tenant is directed against the order dated 20th January, 1997, passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 directing release of the accommodation in question, which is shop, in favour of the landlady and the order dated 2nd December, 2004, passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures 5 and 13, respectively, to the writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent landlady Smt. Premwati filed an application against original tenant Dr. Kailash Chand under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (in short 'the Act') on the ground that she is the landlady of the shop in dispute, namely, shop Nos. 36/2 and 36/3, situated in Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi Road, Meerut City. The tenant is occupying the aforesaid shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 165 and is carrying on his practice as an consultant practising doctor. During the pendency of the litigation, the original tenant Dr. Kailash Chand died and petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of Dr. Kailash Chand and petitioner No. 2, Surabhi Agarwal, who is the daughter of Dr. Kailash Chand, have inherited the tenancy. The landlady further asserted that the husband of the landlady was employed with the Life Insurance Corporation from where he retired on 28th February, 1985 and after retirement of the husband of the landlady, there is no other income except the post retirement benefits of the husband of the landlady and the family of the landlady consists of one young daughter and a son and the liability to marry the young daughter and son is also on the applicant-landlady. It was therefore decided by the landlady that in order to augment the income of the family, the landlady will start the business of readymade garments and for that purposes she requires release of the shops in question. It is further asserted that the need of the landlady is bona fide and on the question of comparative hardship since the petitioners-tenant, namely, Dr. Kailash Chand, now dead, is running a nursing home in his house situated at Mohalla Nehru Nagar, Meerut. In fact the tenant does not require the shop in question or in any case in the event of eviction from the shop in question, no hardship will be caused to the tenant. The petitioners-tenant contested the aforesaid release application filed by the landlady and denied that he is running any nursing home from his residence. The tenant further stated that in fact the son of the landlady is employed at Muzaffarnagar, therefore the landlady does not require the accommodation in question, as the husband of the landlady is getting pension after the retirement of service of his husband.
3. The prescribed authority after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlady is bona fide and further that the petitioners-tenant have in fact sublet the shop in question to one Tahir Ansari unauthorisedly without consent of the landlady after the death of Dr. Kailash Chand and the said Tahir Ansari is in fact running business of electric motor repairing. The legal heirs of the tenant has stated that the tenant is carrying on the business of selling electric motor spare parts and one Sazid is looking after the said business. The landlady has also denied the statement of the tenant that the husband of the landlady is getting any pension. She further asserted that in fact when the husband of the landlady retired in the year 1985, no pension was payable in the L.I.C. organisation, therefore he is not beneficiary of the pension scheme, which is enforced from the year 1996. The appellate authority considered the aspect of the matter and found that even assuming that the husband of the landlady is getting pension, the need of the landlady is bona fide need, as is held by this Court in the case in Moti Lal Sharma v. Additional District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., 1987 (2) ARC 75 and Baidyanath Das v. District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., 1991 (17) ARC 393. The appellate authority therefore affirmed the finding of the prescribed authority regarding the bona fide need of the landlady. On the question of comparative hardship, the appellate authority found that it is admitted fact that original tenant Dr. Kailash Chand has died. It is also found by the appellate authority that there is no dispute that after the death of original tenant Dr. Kailash Chand, somebody else is carrying on the business of repairing of the electric motors from the shop in dispute. The appellate authority further found that from the assertion made by the landlady and the tenant, it is apparent that the present petitioner-tenant is not carrying on any business from the shop in question and therefore affirmed the finding that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business from the shop in question and has in fact sublet the same. Thus, the appellate authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority regarding bona fide need and also the findings regarding the tilt of the comparative hardship, particularly after the death of original tenant Dr. Kailash Chand, who died during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners-tenant has sublet the shop in question to some other person without consent of the landlady.
4. Before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenant submitted that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse, therefore deserve to be quashed by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by referring one statement from one para and other statement from other para and submitted that findings requires to be quashed as if the evidence on record if reappraised the result would be deferred. I am afraid that this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners-tenant cannot be accepted in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) : 2004 (2) SCCD 890 : 2004 (1) ARC 613, as the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenant could not demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority suffer from any error, much less manifest error apparent on the face of record. In this view of the matter, I do not find this to be a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.