Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16128 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1123 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Iqbal Respondent :- Mohammad Yameen Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Abhay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamil Ahamad Azmi, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the order passed by prescribed authority directing for release of tenanted premises in favour of landlord who settled his son Mohd. Chand on the basis of bona fide personal need. The said judgment of the prescribed authority was unsuccessfully appealed against and hence the order of appellate authority is also under challenge. The main argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite there being sufficient evidence available on record that petitioner's son Mohd Chand for whose personal need release application was filed, was already doing business with his mother in the name of Hindustan Bricks Work and that tax receipt to that effect had been filed. It is also pleaded that there were sufficient evidence available on record that Mohd Chand was a contractor with Railways and had sufficient earning from there, and therefore, personal need set up was not a bona fide one. It is also pleaded that documents filed in this regard were not seen in a correct perspective and the prescribed authority erred in giving findings on comparative hardships against petitioner despite there being sufficient documentary evidence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the court to the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, which according to him showed that name of Mohd. Chand was there as proprietor of the firm, namely, Hindustan Bricks Work. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that finding returned by the prescribed authority affirmed in appeal are cogent and convincing one as it is based upon relevant material. It is argued that documents that were sought to be relied upon by tenant respondent were of the previous years to the year of filing of application for release, and therefore, not much reliance could have been placed upon the same. Hence, according to him findings qua bona fide need returned in favour of the land lord respondent cannot be held to be perverse. It is further pleaded that son of the landlord respondent Mohd. Chand is really unemployed person as at the time of filing of release application he was neither gainfully employed, nor was he contractor of the Railways, nor proprietor of the Hindustan Bricks Work. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the documents relied upon was much prior to the filing of release application. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that merely because son is a helping hand/assistance in business with mother, the landlord cannot be denied an opportunity to settle his son independently in business for which release application is absolutely maintainable. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the documents that have been led in support of the claim set up by the tenant that son for whom release application for bona fide need was set up and consequently, release application was filed, was contractor of the railways as well as had proprietorship of the Hindustan Bricks Work, however, these documents were of the year 2013-14. Prescribed authority has dealt with all these documents and has returned findings to the effect that since these documents were of the period much prior to the year 2017 when the bona fide need was set up, these documents could not be relied upon to establish a case or even raise presumption that son was gainfully employed or otherwise being in some business from which he had sufficient earning and that need set up was not a bona fide one. Upon pointed query being made as to how these findings can be held to be perverse or there was further any such material which had scaped the eyes of the prescribed authority, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such document. He only stated that even earlier a release application was filed by landlord, which had been dismissed, against which appeal was preferred, which was pending when this release application came to be filed and was only later on withdrawn. In my considered view, the second argument is also not tenable as there is no bar for filing a second release application by the landlord. I find further that earlier release application had been held as not maintainable for want of sufficient notice and statutory lapse of period to apply for release by a subsequent purchaser as per law under the Act of 13 of 1972. Thus, the second application would not only be maintainable but entertainable as well. In view of above, I do not find any perversity either on the point of law or any point of facts in the judgment of prescribed authority directing for order of release of tenanted premises in favour of landlord respondent, nor do I find that any error much leas a legal one to interfere in the order of appeal, which has affirmed by the order of prescribed authority. This petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad