S.N.Saxena - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against the release of shop occupied by him in favour of the landlord, who wants to establish his son in business. The prescribed authority as well as the court of appeal, namely Xllth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur recorded concurrent findings of fact in favour of the landlord holding that his need for the shop under consideration was genuine, bonafide and more pressing.
(2.) FOR the petitioner, it has been contended by his learned counsel that during the pendency of these proceedings, the landlord had got released one shop in which he could accommodate his son for doing business and it was wrongly held by the court below that inspite of possession over the said shop, his need for the shop in dispute was genuine, bonafide and more pressing. It was also contended that respondent No. 3 (Mohammad Haseen) was not the sole landlord of the shop in dispute due to which the release order could not be granted in his favour alone. These contentions were considered by the court of appeal and decided against the tenant. Regarding the release of another shop in favour of the landlord, the court below held that it was not sufficient for carrying on business as it was top small and that the bonafide and pressing need of the landlord, therefore for shop in dispute for starting independent business by his son in it had not come to an end. The court below also held that it was factually incorrect to say that there were other landlords also. The XIIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur found as a fact that the District Judge had issued the letter of administration in respect of the shop in dispute in favour of respondent No. 3 (Mohd. Haseen) alone, who, therefore, was to be deemed to be the sole landlord of the shop in dispute. The court below appears to have correctly recorded the aforesaid findings. It could not be shown for the petitioner that there was any manifest errors of law in the judgment of the court of appeal. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exercises supervisory jurisdiction only and not the jurisdiction of a court of appeal. The evidence on record, therefore, could not be scrutinized here in the same manner as was done by the court of appeal. There was neither illegality nor any manifest errors of law in the impugned judgment of the court of appeal. This writ petition, there fore, was liable to be dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally prayed that some more time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute. The proceedings are pending decision since 1988. The prescribed authority allowed one months' time to the petitioner for vacating the shop in dispute. To my mind, it would be proper to grant two months time more from today to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. Two months time more from today is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute and handover its peaceful vacant possession to respondent No. 3, thereafter, provided he files undertaking in the office within 15 days from today to the said effect. In case, no undertaking is filed within 15 days, respondent ?No. 3 shall be at liberty to take recourse to proceedings immediately, thereafter, for recovery of possession of the shop in dispute from the petitioner. Petition dismissed.;