- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. By means of present writ petition under Article 18 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenant has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the UP. R Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short The Act') dated 4th January, 2006, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order dated 24th November, 2003 by which the prescribed authority has allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord, under Section 21 of the Act, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '12' and '7' respectively, to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accomnodation in dispute, which is a shop, in favour of the landlord, as he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for the purposes of the chamber of landlord who is a practising lawyer. It was also asserted by the landlord that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business and that the tenant has sublet to some third person, who is carrying, on fair price shop business in the shop in dispute. It is further asserted by the landlord that the landlord, who is prac tising advocate, has recently been ap pointed as 'notary Public' and requires the aforesaid shop after release for his chamber, wherein he can use the aforesaid room for consultation with his clients, as at present the landlord do not have any independent consultation chamber and that the landlord is using the room in his possession, which in fact a bed-room by putting a curtain and utilising half portion of the bedroom as consultation chamber. That due to the paucity of space and appointment of the landlord as 'notary Public', he re quires the additional accommodation and for that purposes the shop in dis pute is requireri for the bona fide need and the same may be released in his favour. As far as the comparative hardship is concerned, the assertion of the landlord in the release application is that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business in the shop in dispute and he is un- necessarily occupying the shop because the tenant demands premium for vacating the same. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid release application before the prescribed authority on the ground that the property is owned by Smt. Kalawati, who used to issue the rent receipts also and therefore, in the absenee 61 Smt. Kalawati as a party, the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' is not maintainable. It is further asserted by the tenant that after the ddath of Ghanshyam Gupta, all his heirs inherited the property and so far as the family partition which is set up by the respondent- landlord, since is not a registered document, cannot be read in evidence. On the question of bans fide need, the tenant disputed the claim of the landlord and it is submitted be half of the tenant that the need of the landlord is neither bona fide, nor genuine and there is absolutely no ex planation by the landlord in the present application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' as to why this application has been filed after about eight years of the family partition. The prescribed authority after hearing both the parties and after perusal of the evidence on record have recorded finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord, it there fore, vide its order dated 24th Novem ber, 2003 allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord and directed release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved by the order dated 24th November, 2003 passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority, the same arguments were ad vanced as were advanced before the prescribed authority. So far as the main tainability of the application under Sec tion 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' is concerned, trig prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have relied upon a decision reported in 1995 (1) ARC 146, wherein the application filed by one of the joint owner, without impleading the joint owners has been held to be main tainable and therefore, the argument advanced 6n behalf of the tenant that application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' filed by the landlord without im pleading Smt. Kalawati as a party is rejected and it is held that the applica tion of the landlord is maintainable. On the question of bona fide need, the ap pellate authority confirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and held that the landlord requires the shop in dispute for the purposes of con sultation chamber for himself who is a practising advocate. On the question of requirement Of room for practising ad vocate, the appellate authority as well as the prescribed authority have relied upon the decisions reported in 2001 (1) ARC 581 and 2003 (2) ARC 792; wherein this Court has held that the re quirement for chamber for the Advocate has been held to be bona fide require ment. On the question of comparative hardship, the Courts below have relied upon decision of this Court reported in 2005 (1) ARC 394, Jogendra Singh Bajaj v. IV Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, wherein this Court relying upon the earlier decision of this Court has held that "in case the tenant have made no effort to find out a suitable alternative accommodation after the filing of the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' against him, then the need will not be considered for the purposes of comparative hardship. " However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellate authority have recorded finding that alternative ac commodation suggested by the tenant that the so called Pooia room can be utilised by the landlord for the purposes of consultation chamber is not correct, thus the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, learned Coun sel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenant tried to assail the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority on the question of bona fide requirement as well as the comparative hardship. I have gone through the or ders impugned in the present writ peti tion passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, but nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and af firmed by the appellate authority in any way suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 682, Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an ap pellate Court by re- appreciating o' re-evaluating the evidence while exercis ing supervisory jurisdiction under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Lastly it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners- tenant sub mitted that since the tenant is carrying on business in the shop in dispute, therefore, he may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstan ces of the case as also in the interest of justice, direct that the petitioners-tenant shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute pursuant to the impugned orders till 31st August, 2006, provided: (1) petitioners-tenant furnishes an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within three months from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord on or before 31st August, 2006; and (2) petitioners-tenant pay to the landlord or deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already paid to the landlord or deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within three months from today and continues to pay or deposit the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in posses sion or till 31st August, 2006, whichever is earlier. The landlord will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by the petitioners-tenant. (3) In the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondent- landlord to get the order executed.;