- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ peti tion arises out of an order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act"), whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respon dent-landlords by its order dated 27th February 2004.
(2.) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner is the tenant of House No. 107/99 Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The ac commodation in the tenancy of the petitioner consists of two rooms, court yard, latrine- bathroom and kitchen on the first floor and the petitioner is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. The contesting respondents are landlord of the aforesaid accommodation who filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' before the prescribed authority under "the Act' on the ground that the accommodation available with the landlord is insufficient for their need and considering the large families of the landlord, the landlord bona fide require additional accommodation to accom modate the family members who are residing with the landlord in accom modation in dispute. The landlord have described the family members as under: That the family of the landlords consists of aged widow mother Smt. Tara and divorced sister Smt. Krishna Devi aged 50 years. The family of Prem Kishor consists of Prem Kishor aged 40 years, wife Anita 35 years, daughters aged 9 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively. The family of the other landlord consists of the landlord himself, his wife aged 40 years, daughters aged 18 years. 16 years and son 14 years. Thus the family of the landlord consists of 13 members, as against this the family of the tenant is a small family. His son is also employed. After exchange of pleadings and evidence of the parties the prescribed authority by its order dated 11th May 2001 rejected the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act'. Aggrieved thereby the landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of 'the Act' before the appel late authority. Before the appellate authority the landlord submitted that the view taken by the prescribed authority that the landlord do not re quire any additional accommodation bona fide is not correct and from the evidence on the record as discussed by the appellate authority it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that the landlords' need is bona fide. The appellate authority further found that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. The appellate Authority, therefore, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord, set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and directed the application filed by the landlords under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' be allowed releasing the ac commodation in question in favour of the landlord. It is this order passed by the appellate authority which is under challenge by the petitioner- tenant. 5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appel late authority without setting aside the finding recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship has recorded its own finding and therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner- tenant cannot be accepted in view of provisions of Section 22 read with Section 10 of the Act which are reproduced below: " (22) Appeal.-Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal. 10. Appeal against order under Sections 8, 9 and 9-A. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the District Magistrate under Section 8 or Section 9 or Section 9-A may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an ap peal against it to the District Judge and the Dis trict judge may either dispose it of himself or as sign it for disposal to an Additional District Judge under his administrative control and may recall it from any such officer, or transfer it to any other such officer. (2) The appellate authority may con firm, vary or rescind the order, or remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing and may also take any additional evidence and pending its decision, stay the operation of the order under appeal on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit. (3) No further appeal or revision shall lie against any order passed by the appellate authority under this section and its order shall be final. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate authority on the question of bona fide and comparative hardship cannot be sus tained as he has not given opportunity to demonstrate from the record. Had the tenant been given opportunity he could have successfully demonstrated that the findings are such that a reasonable per son cannot arrive at. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, 2004 (2) JCLR 400 (SC) : (2004) 3 SCC 682, the contention of the tenant cannot be ac cepted as unless demonstrated by the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority with regard to bonafide and comparative hardship are either perverse or suffer from manifest error of law the same cannot be inter fered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Coun sel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority on the question of bona fide need and the comparative hardship in any way is either perverse or suffer from manifest error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court in exer cise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of what has been stated above this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. 8. Lastly it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is living in the ac commodation in dispute since long time, he may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the accom modation in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice I direct that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in question for a period of one year from today, provided: (1) the petitioner furnishes undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the accommodation in question to the landlords on or before 31st May, 2007; (2) the petitioner pays the entire arrears of rent/damages calculated at the rate of rent within three 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 landlords shall be per mitted to withdraw the same. 9. In the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the landlords to get the order of eviction executed against the petitioner. .;