- (1.) A. N. Varma, J. I have heard Sri J. N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N. K. Shukla, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 3.
(2.) THE instant writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-7-2006 passed by the opposite party No. 1, whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner, i. e. the tenant against the judgment and order dated 21-6-2006 passed by the opposite party No,2, allowing the application of the landlord, i. e. opposite party" No. 3, under Section 16 (1) (b) 6f U. P. Act XIII of 1972, has been dismissed. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that after making submission on merits before the opposite party No. 1, the learned Counsel for the petitioner succumbed on the question of maintainability of Revision and requested the Court below that as the tenant had been running the shop as a photographer so sufficient time be allowed to him to vacate the property. in dispute. THE request made by the petitioner was acceded to and opposite party No. 1 granted two months time to vacate the premises. An undertaking with regard to the same was also required to be given by the petitioner within the time stipulated in the said order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has not furnished the undertaking before the opposite party No. 1 and has approached this Court against the impugned order. Once the petitioner having succumbed on the question of maintainability of Revision before the learned Court below and undertook to vacate the premises within the time stipulated in the said order, he cannot be permitted to raise before this Court, variety of grounds on merits. The order passed by the District Judge on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioner to vacate the premises does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
(3.) HOWEVER, looking to the fact that the petitioner is doing business in the shop in question since 1968 and he has no other alternative accommodation at the moment to shift his business, he is allowed six months time from today to vacate the shop in question. The learned Counsel for the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the Court below within a period of one week from today that he will hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to its landlord, i. e. opposite party No. 3, by 5-2-2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that rent upto August 2006 has been deposited under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 before the Civil Judge, Hawaii, Lucknow. He shall continue to deposit the rent before the said Court by 7" of every month until such time he vacates and hands over the vacant possession to the landlord as aforesaid.;