- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4-3-1997 whereby the release ap plication filed under Section 21 (1) (a) 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", with respect to the shop in dispute was allowed and the order dated 24-7-2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 3 who is the landlord of the shop in dispute, made an application for release of the said shop as he wanted to settle one of his sons in business. On receipt of the notice from the Court of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed written statement con troverting and denying the facts stated in the release application. The parties there after produced evidence in support of their cases in the form of affidavits. The Prescribed Authority after going through the entire evidence on record, allowed the. release application by its judgment and order dated 4-3-1997. The petitioner, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 24-7-2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally in not consider ing the evidence on record and arbitrarily recorded findings on the question of genuine and bona fide need as well as com parative hardship, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are liable to quashed. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. The authorities below have recorded concurrent findings on the question of bona fide and genuine need of the contest ing respondent No. 3 as also on the ques tion of comparative hardship. The said findings are findings of fact. The authorities below have taken into account the entire evidence which formed part of the record. The findings recorded by the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the authorities below. No case for inter ference under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India is made out.
(3.) LASTLY, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute. In my opinion, under the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, it will meet the ends of justice if I grant four months' time from today to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute subject to the condi tion the petitioner furnishes an undertak ing in writing before the Prescribed Authority within two weeks from today, that immediately on expiry of the aforesaid time, he shall vacate the shop in dispute and hand over possession to the contesting respondent No. 3 and further, that he shall make payment of rent of the shop in dispute for the period he remains in occupation of the said shop. It is ordered accordingly. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails, and dis missed. Petition dismissed. .;