AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 245 wordsSudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 08.08.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut allowing appeal of respondentlandlord and consequently allowing release application filed under Section 21 (1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and it had directed the petitionertenant to vacant premises in dispute i.e. a shop and releasing the same in favour of landlord.
The Appellate Court has recorded findings on personal need to be genuine and bona fide and issue of hardship has also decided in favour of landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error in the impugned appellate judgment warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in WritA No.11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012 (Reported in 2012 (3) ARC 339). There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.
In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere.
Dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.