- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-tenant has approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having felt aggrieved by the order dated 26th September, 1978 of the prescribed authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the prescribed authority allowed an application filed by respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1) of the Act directing release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.
(2.) THE petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the order of release dated 26th September, 1978 preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act being Appeal No. 259 of 1978 which has been transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No. IV, Meerut. THE appellate Court by its order dated 20th November, 1984 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and the order of the prescribed authority was quashed and matter was remanded back to the prescribed authority for decision afresh which was later on reviewed by appellate authority on an application filed by the landlord by the order dated 11th October, 1985. THE petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 11th October, 1985 whereby the appellate authority reviewed its earlier order dated 26th November, 1984 filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 17062 of 1985. THE aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 11-10-1985 was upheld and the appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal. As per direction issued by this Court the appellate Court decided the appeal on 9th December, 2005 whereby the appellate authority affirmed the order passed by the prescribed authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. THE prescribed authority by the impugned order has recorded finding to the effect that the need of landlord is bona fide and the tilt of comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. THE finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord has been affirmed by the appellate authority. THE contention on behalf of the petitioner before this Court as well as before the prescribed authority and the appellate authority is that the need of the landlord has been erroneously upheld by the authorities below as is clear from the fact that the petitioner is tenant since 1955 when the property is vested in a Society which is registered with Registration No. 202/95-96 dated 7th September, 1955 and that the Society in its general meeting dated 25th October, 1963 has passed a resolution that the name of the trust be changed and it has now been named as Ram Das Mathura Das Trust. THE general body of the Society also amended its bye-laws and amended bye-laws clearly demonstrate that the trust is a public charitable trust. An application under Section 21 was filed by the landlord that they require the property in dispute for the purpose of Dharamshala trust and that they will use it only for the purpose of Dharamshala whereby public in general will be benefited. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is tenant since 1947 and the trust cannot be termed as public charitable trust and that the application has not been filed by public charitable trust, this is only a device to enhance the rent. The trust has no object and, therefore, the application cannot be allowed for the purpose of need of the trust. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have examined the aforesaid argument qua material on the record and found that in view of law laid down by this Court it cannot be said that Dharamshala is not a public charitable trust and thus rejected the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. Learned Counsel further submitted that since the petitioner is tenant since 1947, if there was any change in the composition of the owner and if any trust was being constituted the petitioner should have been given opportunity and his objection should have been heard before passing the resolution. This argument has been repelled by the authorities below and in my opinion rightly. Since the findings regarding bona fide and the comparative hardship are findings which have been affirmed by the appellate authority and learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the said findings either suffer from manifest error of law or are perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that since the petitioner is carrying on business from the shop in dispute, he may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances it is directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in question till 15th August, 2006 pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition provided : (1) the petitioner furnishes undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of four weeks from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the accommodation in question to the landlord on or before 15th August, 2006; (2) the petitioner pays the entire arrears of rent/damages calculated at the rent of rent within four weeks from today, if not already paid, by either depositing the same before the prescribed authority or paying the same to the landlord-respondent and keeps on depositing the future rent/damages by first week of the succeeding month in the manner prescribed above. The amount if deposited before the prescribed authority by the petitioner-tenant, the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlord. In the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the landlord to get the order of eviction executed against the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .;