Findings on 'bonafide need' and 'comparative hardship' are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenge the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Lakhimpur Khiri thereby dismissing the petitioner's rent appeal and also the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority/A.C.J.M. Court No.1, Lakhimpur Khiri by which the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the landlord/respondent was allowed.

2. The facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rohit Tripathi are that an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred as Act-13 of 1972 was moved by the respondents on 7.4.2000, inter-alia stating therein that the shop no. 6 which is situated at Station Road, District Lakhimpur Kheri and bounded as under:-

East- Shop No.7 of Sri Dinesh Kumar.

West- Shop No.5 under the tenancy of the petitioner.

North- Resident of landlord

South- Road/Station road.

3. In the release application it was stated that the shop nos. 5 and 6 were given let out by the father of the respondent no. 3 to 8 (late Sri Parmatma Swaroop Srivastava) to the petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs.500/- each now the rent of the said shop are Rs.600/- per month for each shop. However, the tenant had not given the rent w.e.f. September, 1999, after the death of their father the respondent no.3 to 8 need the shop no.6 in order to carry out their livelihood as such keeping in view the dire and bona fide need of the family release application was moved in respect to shop no.6 for the purposes of starting the electric business by Km. Karuna Srivastava on the basis of said facts a Case No.4/2000 was registered before the respondent no.2 i.e. Prescribed Authority/ A.C.J.M., Court No.1 Lakhimpur Khiri.

4. In the said case the present petitioner, who was respondent had filed his written statement, wherein the relation between the landlord and tenant was not denied, however it was submitted that the father of the respondent no.3 to 9 had let out two shops no.5 and 6 on rent to him. The petitioner from the said rented shop is running business of battery repair and recharge and looking into the nature of the said business the petitioner required to mutually separated shop out of which one is required for storage and repair of battery as the said shop cannot be used for human occupation because of the toxic gases and chemicals emitted by batteries, therefore, other shop is required for miscellaneous works. Accordingly, the petitioner needs two shops for doing his business, in the written statement it was further mentioned that the landlord have seven shops in the same vicinity out of which one shop (shop no.3) was vacant for last four years but now the same was let out to some other tenant, as such the need of the landlord was neither genuine nor bona fide in comparison to need of the tenant.

5. After the exchange of the pleadings and other documentary evidence the Prescribed Authority in order to adjudicate and decide the dispute, which was pending before it had framed the following four issues:

1. Kya prasngat dukan no.-6 ki prathini sankhya -3 ke vyavsai ke lia sadbhavi awashykta hai ?

2. Dukan khali karane jane avam na khali karaye jane ki sthiti me pachhgan ki parasper kiski kathinai adhik hai ?

3. Kya prathigan ke pas prathini sankhya-3 ke vyavsai ke lia koi anya dukan uplabdh hai ?

4. Kya vivadit dukan no.-6 prathigan ke paksh me niryukt kia jane yougya hai ?

Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority on the basis of the pleadings and material documentary as well as oral evidence available before him, specially taking into consideration the statement of PW-1 Km. Karuna Srivastava, PW-3 Hamidulla and PW-4 Harish Kumar had held that as the landlords have got no other shop vacant in their possession in order to start business in question for the purpose of which the release application was moved so the needs of landlord