- (1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the order of the Appellate Court dated 14th Decem ber, 2000 in Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 1998 has-been assailed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the need of the landlord/respondent No. 3 on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had filed document showing that the landlord had five vacant shops and the need for the shop in question was not bona-fide and genuine. The Appellate Court has considered the above document and found that it was forged one and no reliance can be placed on it. The learned Appellate Court has also given reasoning for arriving on the above conclusion and I find no ground to interfere with the above finding of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution of India. The learned Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have considered the need of the landlord and have recorded the concurrent finding about the bona fide need which are based on evidence on record.
(3.) HAVING heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. I find no ground to interfere with the above con current findings of fact. The writ petition has no force. The petitioner is present in the Court and undertakes that he will file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority concerned to vacate the premises within a period of one year from today. The above undertaking may be filed within a period of one month and up-to date rent be deposited within one month and the petitioner shall also go on depositing month rent on 7th of each month. If the above conditions are fulfilled within above period, the petitioner shall remain in the premises in question till 31st January, 2002.;