Sudhir Chandra Verma J. - (1.) IN proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for the release of the disputed shop, both the courts below have held that the landlord has a bona fide and genuine need to establish himself in business as he has resigned from service to engage himself in business. As regards the comparative hardship also, the courts below have held that the tenant should have been able to arrange an alternative accommodation at his residence which was available and which may be suitably utilised after shifting from the disputed shop. In view of these findings of fact, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(2.) THE landlord counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that since the accommodation is a business accommodation and the petitioner had been doing business for sufficiently long time, he may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premises. In view of these facts and in the interest of justice, I allow six months' time to the petitioner to deliver peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord. This indulgence would be available to the petitioner provided he furnishes an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order also continues to pay the monthly rent. In default of any of the conditions stated above, the aforesaid indulgence would not be available to the petitioner. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges with 3 days.;