ARUN TANDON J. - (1.) PETITIONER before this Court is the tenant of premises bearing House No. 4/132/1. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court passed in P.A. Case No. 32 of 2005 dated 30.07.2008 wherein the release application of the landlord under Section 21(1)A of the Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed. The appeal filed against the said order being Rent Appeal No. 119 of 2009 has also been dismissed by the Additional DJ vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2011 after affirming the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Both the authorities under the Rent Control Act have arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and further that he had no other shop available with him for establishing the grandson for whom the need had been set up.
(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner, initially an attempt was made to contend that the landlord had no other accommodation available with him was a perverse finding inasmuch as the landlord has eight shops available with him at Indira Market, Daresi, Agra which were lying vacant. Taking into consideration such serious objections to the findings recorded by the authorities under the Rent Control Act, this Court appointed a Court Commissioner to visit Indira Market, Daresi, Agra and to submit his spot inspection report. The Court Commissioner, after spot inspection, has submitted a report categorically stating that absolutely no other shop is in vacant possession of the landlord/ or establishing his grandson. Various flimsy objections have been raised to the report of the Court Commissioner which has no substance. Counsel for the petitioner today filed an affidavit for bringing on record a copy of the cross-examination of the landlord dated 16.03.2011 recorded in another case namely SCC Case No. 70 of 2005 for the purposes of creating a ground that the landlord has admitted that he has five shops in his possession. I am of the considered opinion that such evidence cannot be taken into consideration at this stage nor the proceedings of another case are in any way relevant for the present dispute.
(3.) THIS Court finds no good ground to interfere with the orders passed. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that a period of nine months would serve the interest of justice. Accordingly it is provided that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till 15.03.2012 provided : (a) he files an affidavit within a month from today along with a certified copy of this order before the Judge, Small Causes Court categorically undertaking that he shall handover the possession of the premises peacefully to the landlord on or before 15.03.2012. (b) he deposits the entire decreetal amount and money for the use and occupation of the premises in question till 15.03.2012 in advance by way of a bank draft drawn in the name of landlord along with his affidavit. The draft shall be handed over to the landlord for encashment. ;