N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh in appeal dated 24 -9 -1991. An application was moved by the landlord for releasing a small shop room occupied by the tenant for personal use and occupation and opening of a laundry shop. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application under Section 21 of the Act 13 of 1972. The landlord being aggrieved by the said judgment and order preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge Aligarh. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out to the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that earlier a suit, was filed for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of licencee. That suit failed and immediately there -after the present application under Section 21 of the Act was filed. The Prescribed Authority observed that this application under Section 21 of the Act was filed with some ill motive against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is another shop in the residential premises of the landlord which could be used by the landlord for opening a shop of laundry. This fact was not considered by the lower appellate court which has caused prejudice to the present case of the petitioner. It is now established from the record that the alleged shop which the petitioner refers as a shop -room is measuring 5'6"x 6'6" in size. There is a report from the Commissioner which shows that at the time of inspection certain books were lying in the said room. It cannot be conclusively said that it is a shop -room. Rather, it was established that it was a residential portion of the house where kids study. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that an application with an affidavit was filed by the earlier tenant who had vacated the aforesaid room in 1966 and emphasis was laid that this was a shop room vacated by the earlier tenant is in occupation of the landlord. Thus, there was no need for any further accommodation and the finding of the lower appellate court was vitiated. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. From the evidence on record, it appears that the opposite parties were doing business in a very small room. The son of the landlord intended to start a laundry shop. The need for opening laundry shop was considered to be bona fide and genuine. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the document filed before the court below was not properly examined and this case was liable to be remanded on the ground of certain new facts which had come into the knowledge of the applicant. I do not consider that this is one of those cases which may call for interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is a small shop -room and parties appear to be of meagre means. It would not be proper to shunt them from one court to another on mere technicalities. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(2.) SINCE the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed shop -room in question for a pretty longtime, I consider that it would be just and proper that some time be granted to the petitioner to enable him to search out alternative accommodation for shifting. The petitioner is directed to vacate the disputed shop -room and hand over the same to the landlord peacefully within 6 months from today during which time the order of the court below for evicting the petitioner shall not be executed. The petition is accordingly dismissed.;