- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. Heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate as sisted by Km. Rama Goel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.
(2.) A release petition (P. A. case No. 43 of 1988) under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by respondent No. 3 against the present petitioner and one Radha Kant Dubey. It was allowed by an order dated 2-8-1992. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act (Rent Appeal No. 131 of 1992),which has been dismissed by an order dated 18-1-2001. The release petition was filed against the two real brothers, namely, the present petitioner as well as one Radha Kant Dubey. Radha Kant Dubey earlier field writ petition No. 7232 of 2001. It has been dismissed by this Court by an order dated 26-2-2001, a copy of which is Annexure 6 to this petition. 4. After having heard learned Coun sel for the parties, I find that the same treatment which has been extended in the case of Radha Krishna, is required to be given to the present petitioner. Sri Rajesh Tandon pointed out that the question pf bonafide need as well as that of hardship is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, under Article of 226 of Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on some decisions in the case of Kamla Sarin v. Shivam Lal and another, 1984 (2) All. R. C. 344; Munnilal and another v. Prescribed Authority and another, A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 29: 1981 ARC 470 (SC); Nathu Lal v. Radhey, A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1696; Babhutmal Raichand v. Laxmibai, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1296; Smt, Labhkumar Bhawani Shaha v. Janardan Mahadeo Kalan, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 535;ramrakeshpal andanotherv. Ist Additional District Judge and others, 1976 U. P. R. C. C. 376; Jagan Prasad v. District Judge and another, 1976 U. P. R. C. C. 342; Laxmi Narain v. IInd Additional District Judge and another, 1977 U. P. R. C. C. 230; Smt. Nirmala Tandon v. Xth Addl. District Judge Kanpurnagar, 1996 (2) A. R. C. Page 409 and in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Praduman Ju Agarwal, 1997 (2) JCLR 94 (SC); 1997 (1)A. R. C. 627. 5. In view of the firm legal position that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the two Courts below on the question of bona fide need as well as balance of hardship, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and dismiss the petition. 6. However with the view to balance the rights of the parties and to mitigate the hardship which may occasion to the petitioner in shifting to another accom modation consequent upon the order of release passed against him, I feel that it would be proper if the order of release dated 2-5-1992 as affirmed in appeal by an order dated 18-1-2001 is postponed till 31-12- 2001;provided the petitioner files an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority incorporating an undertaking that he shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of the released accommoda tion to the landlord by 31-12-2001 and deposit the entire arrears of rent by 10-5-2001. This affidavit shall be filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority by 10-5- 2001 failing which the order of release dated 2-5-1992 shall become ex ecutable thereafter. Petition allowed. .;