Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 28 -5 -1984 and the appeal by the tenant under Section 22 of the Act has also been dismissed by order dated 24 -10 -1985. The aforesaid orders have been impugned in the present writ petition. The landlord applied for release of two shops, one in occupation of the petitioner Doodh Nath and the other in occupation of one Shami. The respondent No. 3 needed the shop for his personal use to establish his medical clinic as also for his residential purposes as the accommodation at his disposal is very short considering the number of family members and their requirements. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 28 -5 -1934 allowed both the applications for the release of both the shops and held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine for the establishment of his medical clinic as also for residential purposes. The appeals filed by the two tenants were also dismissed by order dated 24 -10 -85 by separate judgments though on identical findings. The tenant of the other shop Mohammed Shami had not challenged the appellate order and possession of the shop was delivered to the landlord. The present petitioner alone filed the writ petition challenging the orders dated 28 -5 -1984 and 24 -10 -1985.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The findings of fact recorded by the two courts below that the need of the landlord to establish his clinic and Examination Chamber are fully justified. The accommodation at his disposal for the requirement of the members of the family was too short. On comparison of hardship, it was held that the tenant has got his own residential accommodation hardly at a distance of half furlong from the disputed house and the petitioner carries on the business of washing clothes in the house itself. The disputed shop is only being used for pressing the clothes which can also be done at the place where the clothes are washed i.e. in the residential house of the tenant. The tenant would not be put to any hardship in case he has to vacate the disputed accommodation whereas the landlord would suffer greater hardship in case they would not be able to establish their medical clinic which is the only source of livelihood. I do not find that the aforesaid findings are not borne out from the material on record or are perverse. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation for 2 years' rent. On the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted four months' time to vacate the premises on the condition that the petitioner gives an undertaking in this regard before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.;