- (1.) AN application under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") was filed by the respondent-landlord Laxmi Narain Gupta for release of the disputed shop on the ground of bonafide and genuine need of his son Hari Singh. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application by order dated 08.09.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 26 of 2009, under Section 22 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 09.052011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Shop No. 1 is lying vacant and need of the respondent can be satisfied with the said shop. He further contended that respondent no. 3 Hari Singh is doing his private job in Hardoi and also got agricultural land. Both the courts below after perusing the record held that Shop No. 1 is occupied by Pankaj Kumar Gupta, son of Laxmi Narain Gupta, as such it can not be said that the said shop is vacant. It is further held by the courts below that Hari Singh is unemployed and have a small piece of agricultural land, as such it can not be said that his need was not bonafide. The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent no. 3 Hari Singh was gainfully employed or carrying on any business. No cogent material was placed by the petitioner before the courts below to substantiate his arguments. Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord, and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The appellate court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the courts below, unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the lower court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlord did not raise any objection to it. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord-opposite parties without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite parties will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.;