R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.5.1999 whereby application filed by the landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 10.4.2000 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The respondents -landlords made an application for release of the shop in dispute on the ground of their personal need. It was stated that the landlords were in bona fide and genuine need of the shop in question, it was liable to be released in their favour, otherwise they will suffer irreparable loss. The application was opposed and contested by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion the need of the landlords was bona fide and genuine. On the question of comparative hardship the finding was also recorded in favour of the respondents and ultimately release application was allowed by the judgment and order dated 24.5.1999. Challenging the validity of the said order petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 24.2.2000, hence the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally in not taking into consideration the period of occupation of the petitioner of the shop in dispute as provided under clause (a) of sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has been urged that the petitioner was in occupation of the shop in dispute for more than 50 years and that was the relevant factor. I have gone through the judgments and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Both the authorities specifically referred under Rule 16(2)(a), of the Rules and thereafter recorded finding on the relevant question involved in the case, therefore, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the contrary cannot be accepted. Petitioner although took 36 grounds in the writ petition but only above -noted ground was pressed. No other ground was pressed before the Court.
(3.) LASTLY learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has got no objection if three months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute subject to the condition that he will vacate the same immediately on the expiry for the same and will also make payment of the amount of rent for the period of his occupation.;