Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 25 -3 -1995. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in this petition.
(2.) THE landlady respondent No. 3 filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) read with Section 21A of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner which was allowed and the appeal against that order has also been rejected. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the release application has been allowed on the basis of Section 21(1 -A) in favour of the respondent No. 3 who was in Government service and was in occupation of building for residential purpose and has retired and had to vacate the public premises. Sri Tandon further urged that merely because the landlady had to vacate a public building on retirement, it does not follow that the release application must automatically be allowed. In my opinion, the Court below has allowed the release application on the basis of Section 21(1)(a) and not Section 21(1 -A). The Courts below have held that the building has only two rooms which is not sufficient for the need of the landlady who is a widow and lives with her family members. The Courts below have further found that the need of the landlady is genuine. These are finding of facts and I cannot interfere with them in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant one year time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. He shall handover peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent No. 3, on or before 28 -4 -1996 and shall pay rent regularly till then.;