Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20725 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3584 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamlesh Kumari And 4 Others Respondent :- Lalit Kumar Gupta Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Narain Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, whereby a decree of eviction has been passed at the instance of land lord, who claimed the possession of the shop in question on account of the bona fide need as well as the order dated 28.02.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No.32 of 2023 was dismissed. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the building in question was assessed in the year 1998 and the suit in question was filed in the year 2016. Thus, the life of the building was less than 40 years and thus, the building was exempted from the operation of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by virtue of second proviso to Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 4. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bona fide need as pleaded by the land lord was fanciful, inasmuch as, one of the shops had become vacant, which could have been used for the need that was alleged by the land lord. 5. Considering the said submissions, on a perusal of the appellate order, it is revealed that the petitioner himself had admitted that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were applicable. There is no pleading in the present writ petition that the said observation of the appellate court is incorrect. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was also a tenant of the premises prior to 1998. Even as per the finding recorded on issue No.2, it was stated that as per the contention of the petitioner, earlier a suit No.14 of 1988 was filed in respect of the shop in question against the petitioner when the rent was Rs.75 and subsequently, on account of repairs carried out on the terrace, the rent was increased to Rs.320 per month. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner was the tenant in shop even prior to 1988, the said submission has rightly been repelled by the appellate court and warrants no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner needs to be repelled for the reasons that in terms of the Explanation(a) to Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the allegation should be that the building was assessed for the first time in the year 1998, there being no such averment that the building prior to 1998 was not under the municipal assessment, the argument is liable to be rejected. As regards, the bona fide need, the same has been decided against the petitioner based upon appreciation of evidence. 8. Considering the fact that the findings of fact have been recorded and it is well established that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only the error in the decision making process or the errors, which go to the root of the issue can be seen. There is no such issue, which arises for consideration. 9. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. This order has been passed in the presence of Ms. Chitrangda Narain, learned counsel for the land lord. Order Date :- 11.4.2025/Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench