R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 17th July, 2000 whereby the House No. 107/244 -A, Nehru Nagar, Police Station Bajaria, Kanpur has been declared vacant. It appears that the petitioner was occupying the aforesaid house as a tenant. On an intimation given by the landlords, proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the 'Act', were initiated. The Rent Control Inspector made a local inspection and submitted the report to the effect that the petitioner has acquired the House No. D/290, from the Kanpur Development Authority, therefore, he shall be deemed to have been ceased to occupy this house in view of sub -section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. On receipt of the report of the Inspector, notices were issued to the parties concerned. Petitioner filed objection against the report of the Inspector contending that although House No. D/290 was purchased by the petitioner from the Kanpur Development Authority but till date possession was not delivered to him therefore, petitioner cannot be deemed to have ceased to occupy the house in dispute. The Respondent No. 1, after going through the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that house in question, for the reason that the petitioner has acquired House No. D/290 from the Kanpur Development Authority, shall be deemed to be vacant and the petitioner shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the said building. The Respondent No. 1 has recorded clear findings that the possession over the said house has already been delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner has also been paying money to the Kanpur Development Authority towards price of the said house. The finding recorded by the Respondent No. 1 are all findings of fact, which are based on relevant evidence on record. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, lastly, submitted that the petitioner may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the building in question. Learned counsel appearing for the other side, Mr. Rajesh Tandon, has got no objection if four months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition that he delivers vacant possession before or immediately after expiry of the aforesaid time and also pays the rent for the building in question for the period he remains in occupation of the same. In view of aforesaid facts, the petitioner is permitted to vacate the house in question within a period of four months subject to the condition he furnishes an undertaking in writing before the Respondent No. 1 within a period of two weeks from today, to the effect that immediately on expiry of the aforesaid period, he will deliver vacant possession of the house in question to Respondents No. 2 and 3 and also pay the rent for the period he remains in occupation of the building, failing which the law will take its own course and the respondents shall be at liberty to recover the possession over the house in dispute in accordance with law. It is further provided that unless the possession has already been delivered to the petitioner, the Kanpur Development Authority, will deliver possession over House No. D/290 immediately after the application for taking possession alongwith a certified copy of this order is produced before the Competent Authority. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ;