The said bonafide requirement numberlonger subsists and companysequently the High Court should have taken that fact into companysideration and should have interfered with the order passed by the appellate authority for the eviction of the tenant.
The High Court by the impugned judgment came the companyclusion that the decree for eviction has become final and the said finality cannot be disturbed on the application under Article 226 of the Constitution by taking into account the facts that the original landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition.
The prescribed authority on companysideration of the materials on record came to the companyclusion that the landlord does number require the premises for his own use bonafide.
The said prescribed authority also came to the companyclusion that the tenant would be companyparatively harrassed if an order of eviction for eviction having been rejected, the landlord preferred an appeal.
Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the tenant carried the matter to the High Court by filing a writ petition.
The said appellate authority came to the companyclusion that in the facts and circumstances to the case of the requirement of the landlord to start a cloth bushiness must be a bona fide requirement entitling him to get an order of eviction under Section 21 1 a of the Act.
The respondent landlord field a petition for eviction to the appellant under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 inter alia on the ground at the bona fide requires the premises for carrying on his own business and he has numberother means of livelihood.
The learned companynsel further urged that numberdoubt the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is number a companytinuation of the eviction proceedings under the Act, but all the same the High Court while exercising its power of supervisions under Article 226 of the Constitution is number denuded of its power to take into companysideration the subsequent event that had happened which is necessary to be taken into companysideration in the interest of justice.
The appellate authority re appreciated the entire evidence on record and reversed the companyclusion of the prescribed authority.
During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court the landlord died and was substituted by his legal heirs namely his widow, two sons and the married daughter.
The appellate authority, therefore, set aside the order of the prescribed authority and directed eviction of the appellant.
The tenant appellant filed objections before the prescribed authority stating there in that the application for eviction has been filed on false and baseless allegation and in fact the respondent does number need the premises bona fide for starting his own business.
On behalf of the tenant, it was urged before the High Court that the landlord having died, the bona fide requirement which was found to have existed by the appellate authority numbermore survives, and therefore, taking into companysideration the subsequent event the High Court must quash the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority.
This appeal by special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.1997 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
PATTANAIK, J. leave granted.
