Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10905 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000061 of 1992 Petitioner :- Moizulla Jafri And Ors Respondent :- Spl. A.D.J. Pratapgarh And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhaya Kumar,Abhai Kumar,Shamsher Yadav Jagrana Counsel for Respondent :- G.S. Nigam,Ravi Shankar Mishra,Vyas Narayan Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Dr. Shamsher Yadav Jagrana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/3 and no one else appears for other respondents. 2. As the matter is very old of the year 1992, the same is being decided. 3. The petitioner no.1 has died and no substitution application has been filed as such petition stands abated in respect of the petitioner no.1. The matter is being heard in respect of other petitioners. 4. The petition has been filed challenging the judgement dated 11.04.1991, whereby the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of release was allowed. The release application in the present was filed alleging that the landlord required the premises for its own use and occupation on account of the father of the applicant having married again and the relationship in between the step mother and other family members were sour as such it was difficult to live in the same accommodation, the release application was allowed vide order dated 20.08.1986. Against the said order, appeal was preferred, the appeal came to be allowed by means of impugned judgement while allowing the appeal, the appellate court recorded that the best evidence to establish that the relationship were sour could be given by the step mother or members of the family and only the evidence of neighbours has been given and merely on that count the appeal was allowed. 5. Challenging the said order, counsel for the petitioners argues that the appellate court has erred in allowing the appeal as, the release application was filed for bonafide need, which was duly established and proved before the Prescribed Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3/3 submits that the respondents are the tenant of the accommodation since the year 1929 and are also depositing the rent in pursuance of the directions given by the trial court and the need set up by the landlord was fanciful. It is further argued that the petitioner no.1, who had filed the release application, had died and the other petitioners have no ownership right over the property as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder argues that in the writ petition itself, the petitioner no.1 had indicated that the property shall vest with the petitioner nos.3 and 4. 8. Considering the submissions at bar, the appellate court has wrongly allowed the appeal by holding that the evidence laid was short the evidence required to establish the case as was set up by the landlord for establishing his bonafide need. It is fairly well-settled that the appellate court would not interfere only because another view is possible, the appellate court has not recorded any finding that the evidence considered by the Prescribed Authority and relied upon was either perverse or did not establish the bonafide need. The release was sought on account of sour relations in between the second wife and other family members, which could not be termed as in-genuine. The evidence of the neighbours well and duly established the allegations as levelled in the application for establishing the bonafide need, the appellate court has clearly erred in dislodging the order of the Prescribed Authority, the other argument that the petitioners have no right in the property after the death of petitioner no.1 is liable to be rejected as the property has come in favour of the petitioner nos.3 and 4, the release application can be decided considering the mandate of Section 21(7) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The tenant has no right to challenge the title of the landlord. In view thereof, the appellate court order is quashed. The order of the Prescribed Authority is upheld. The decree shall be executed in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Anupam S/- Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench