Sudhir Chandra Verma J. - (1.) BOTH the courts below have concurrently held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine and on comparison of hardship, the landlord would be put to greater hardship. Admittedly the landlord is living in one room with his family consisting of grown up children. The accommodation which he is utilising is alleged to belong to his brother. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding that the claim of the brother as sole owner of the building in which at present the landlord is residing on the basis of a will is not in accordance with law as the will itself has not been proved. Without going into this controversy, otherwise also it is apparent that the landlord who is admittedly residing in only one room with his family consisting of grown up children has a bona fide and genuine need for extra accommodation and for that reason he has purchased the disputed accommodation. Even with the accommodation in the shape of a room, the roof of which is alleged to have been demolished, it would not be sufficient to meet the requirement. In these circumstances, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or error apparent on record in the findings recorded by the courts below.
(2.) THE petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that considering the long occupation of the tenant, some time be given to vacate the disputed accommodation. In the interest of justice, I grant three months' time from today to the petitioner to deliver peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord of the premises, provided he furnished an undertaking in this regard before the prescribed Authority within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of order. This indulgence would be available to the petitioner only in case he furnishes undertaking as stated above as also he pays upto date rent to the landlord.;