Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000128 of 2011 Petitioner :- Smt. Viddayawati Respondent :- Additional Distt. Judge Court No. 6 Faizabad And 8 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- G.S.L. Verma,Bhanu Pratap Kushwaha,Vineet Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar,Abhishek Yadav,Archana Yadav,Irshad Ali,Shakeel Ahmad Ansari,Sunil Kumar Maurya Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of the respondents even in the revised call. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 18.04.20211 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the appellate authority. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner being a landlord of the premises moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) as well as under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 pleading that the premises in question was required for establishing his sons. It was also stated that the building was in a dilapidated condition and need to be demolished and reconstructed. The Prescribed Authority by means of the judgment and order dated 05.06.2010 allowed the release application. While doing so, the Prescribed Authority considered the bonafide need as was set up, the need of the sons of the landlord independently considered including that of the need of the husband and the mother in law, who was 60 years of age and proceeded to pass an order of release holding that the release was bonafide. Challenging the said judgment, three appeals were preferred. While deciding the appeals, the Appellate Authority reconsidered the bonafide need as was pleaded and held that as the two sons were practicing lawyers at Lucknow and not at the place where the property was situated that is Faizabad/Ayodhya, the need was not considered to be genuine, as such, the appeal was allowed and order of release dated 05.06.2010 was set aside. 4. Challenging the said order, the counsel for the petitioner argues that merely because the two sons are practicing at Lucknow, does not mean that they cannot practice at Faizabad/Ayodhya, which is an adjoining district, however, for practicing at Ayodhya/Faizabad, they were requiring the premises. He further argues that the appellate authority has erred in allowing the appeal solely based upon a perception made by the Prescribed Authority. He thus argues that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Considering the appellate order, the appellate authority has re-appreciated the need as set up by the landlord and has disbelieved the same on materials which are not evident on record. It is well settled that the appellate Court would not interfere merely because another view is possible. No error of finding of fact could be noticed in the appellate order in respect of release order dated 05.06.2010. Thus, on the said ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 18.04.2011 is set aside and the order dated 05.06.2010 is affirmed. The petitioner would be at liberty to execute the judgment and order dated 05.06.2010 in accordance with law. The execution shall be decided within a period of six months. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench