- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. Heard Sri K. K. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate, assisted by Km. Rama Goyal for the landlord respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 filed a petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act, No. 13 of 1972 which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 2-3-1992. Against this order the present petition preferred an Appeal No. 131 of 1992 under Section 22 of the Act which was dismissed on 18-1-2001. Sri K. K. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Appellate Court have misread the evidence and have recorded findings which do not flow from the evidence on record. Sri Rajesh Tandon pointed out that it is well established proposition of law that findings with regard to the bonafide need of the landlord as well as that of the hardship is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction under Ar ticle, 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission he placed reliance on some decision in the case of Kamla Sarin v. Shvam Lal and others, 1984 (2) All. R. C. 344;"in the case of Munnilal and another v. Prescribed Authority and another, A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 29: 1981 ARC 470, in the case of Nathu Lal v. Radhey, A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1696, in the case of Babhtumal Rai Chand v. Laxmibai, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1296, in the case of Smt. Labhkumar Bhagwani Sinha v. Janardan Mahadeo Kalan, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 535, in the case oiram Prakash Pal and another v. 1st Additional District Judge and others, 1967 U. P. R. C. C. 376, in the case ofjagan Prasad v. District Judge and another, 1976 UPRC 342, in the case of Laxmi Narain v. Una Additional District Judge and another, 1977 U. P. R. C. C. 230, in the case of Smt. Nirmala Tandon v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpurnagar, 1996 (2) A. R. C. 490, and in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Praduman Ju Agarwal, 1997 (2) JCLR 94 (SC); 1997 (1) A. R. C. 627. From the decisions aforesaid it is well embedded proposition of law that ex traordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not be invoked for disturbing the concurrent findings of fact with regard to the bonafide need of the landlord as well as that of the hardship. In view of the firm legal position I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed.
(3.) AFTER the above order was passed Sri K. K, Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that sometime may be allowed to the petitioner to shift to another accommodation by making alter native arrangement. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the landlord respon dent No. 3 states that if some reasonable time is allowed to the petitioner the landlord shall have no objection. With a view to mitigate the hardship of the petitioner which is likely to occasion on account of displacement pursuant to the order of release and with a view to balance the rights of the parties, I feel that it would be proper and in the interest of justice if the order release which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court is deferred from being implemented till 30th November, 2001. The petitioner shall fur nish an undertaking on affidavit to be filed before the Prescribed Authority within a month from today. After the undertaking is filed, the possession of the petitioner over the disputed accommodation which has been released shall not be disturbed till 30th November, 2001. In case the petitioner does not deliver vacant possession of he released accommodation by 30th November, 2001, the order of release shall become ex ecutable. In the event of failure of the petitioner to furnish undertaking on af fidavit within time as specified above, the concession granted to him to continue to occupy the accommodation till 30th November, 2001 shall stand withdrawn.;