- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. This is tentants' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India whereby the order dated 12- 11-1999 passed in release Petition No. 62 of 1997 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order dated 18-9-2000 passed in Appeal No. 344 of 1999 under Section 22 of the Act have been challenged on the ground that the landlord Nos. 3 and 4 did not have bonafide need to get the residential accommodation released in their favour and in any case if the order of release is maintained the petitioners shall suffer incalculable hard ship.
(2.) COUNTER and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing on behalf of contesting respondent-landlords. It was urged that the question of bonafide need as well as hard-ship is a finding of fact and it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdic tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the apex Court in the cases of Munni Lal and others v. Prescribed Authority and another A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 29, Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. M/s Traders and Agencies and Another. JT 1996 (6) S. C. 468 as well as by this Court in Kamleshwar Prasad v. Praduman Ji Agarwal 1997 (1) A. P. . C. 627; Ram Rakesh Pal and others v. 1st Additional District Judge and others 1976 U. P. R. C. C. 376; Jaganprasad v. District Judge and others 1976 U. P. R. C. C. 342; Laxmi Narain v. IInd Addi tional District Judge and others 1977u. P. R. C. C. 230; Smt. Nirmala Tandon v. Xth Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar 1996 (2) A. P. . C. page No. 4o9. In view of these decisions this Court cannot disturb the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. It may further be pointed out that in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad (Supra) it has been held that an order passed by the prescribed authority and as confirmed in appeal under Section 22 of the Act is a decree and the final decree passed in favour of the landlord cannot be disputed/interfered with in writ jurisdiction. After having heard the parties at some length, I find that it is not a case fit enough requiring intervention of this Court in writ jurisdiction under. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) SRI Pankaj Mithal however urged that on account of compelling circumstan ces, the petitioners are not in a position to vacate the disputed accommodation which has been released in favour of the landlords immediately and one year period be allowed to them. SRI Rajesh Ian-don has no objection, if six months' period is allowed to the petitioners to vacate the accommodation in question. After taking into consideration the respective submis sions of the parties counsel and to balance the rights of the parties, I feel that it would be proper if nine months' time is allowed to the petitioners to vacate the accom modation in question. It is, therefore, directed, that the impugned order of release dated 12-11- 1999 as confirmed in appeal on 18-9-2000 shall not be imple mented till 30th September 2001. For the period from 1st January, 2001 to 30th Sep tember, 2001, the petitioners shall paya sum of 100/- (One Hundred) per month as damages to the landlords. In case the petitioners does not vacate the released accommodation on or before 30th September, 2001, the landlords respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall be entitled to enforce the order of release in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. .;