Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) Undeterred and undaunted has come a tenant before this Court, one Mahendra Pal, with a plea that the time to vacate the accommodation has not arrived.
(2.) Earlier the landlord of the present accommodation, respondent No. 3 Harish Babu brought an action in pursuance of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 complaining that the tenant is in default and arrears of rent. This gave rise to a proceeding as Case No. 104 of 1979, Harish Babu v. Mahendra Pal before the Civil Judge, Badaun. Before the issues could be debated in this matter, the tenant (petitioner before this court) moved an application dated 6th May, 1980 by which he acquiesced to the position that the need of the landlord was indeed pressing and, in fact, agreed to first withdraw from a part of the accommodation in his possession. The first accommodation was not an accommodation as such, but a space 4' x 4' in area so that a petty shop could be carved out for the landlord. In this very application, the tenant also gave a solemn assurance to the court of the Civil Judge, Badaun that the accommodation which now remains in his possession will be surrendered to the landlord as soon as possible. This was in 1980. Apparently this solemn assurance before the Court was not kept 01 acted upon. Inevitably, it gave an occasion to the land-lord to take recourse to an application under Section 21 of the Act for the release of the accommodation which the tenant-petitioner assured he would, but would not do so. This assurance given by the tenant, otherwise on record, did not mean much to be Prescribed Authority. The latter weighed the needs of the landlord and tenant-petitioner, and rejected the application under Section 21. The decision was challenged in appeal, by the landlord, before the IInd Addl. District Judge, Badaun.
(3.) The Additional District Judge, examined other issues but did not permit the tenant-petitioner to dislodge himself from the assurance given to the Court of the Civil Judge, Badaun in Case No. 104 of 1979 in proceeding arising out of Section 20 of the Act. The District Judge attached much importance to the aspect that the tenant had recognised the need of the landlord in Case No. 104 of 1979. In fact this Court feels that it was necessary for the District Judge to examine the bona fides of the landlord when the tenant had voluntarily and on his option given an assurance to the Court that the accommodation, so remaining, with him would be vacated. It was, in effect, an undertaking of the tenant-petitioner. The release application itself was based on one important aspect, in that, the landlord an employee of the railway administration was about to retire. The District Judge records that the retirement is quite imminent and that he will stand retired in 1989.;