Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) There is no illegality in the judgments of the two courts below warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Upon the facts presented, the two courts have considered the needs of the petitioners as tenant and the landlord respondent No. 3. After having carefully weighed the hardships, the two courts below came to the conclusion that the premises in question must be released upon an application which had been filed under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The decisions are otherwise correct.
(2.) The only aspect which needs to be considered is the question of the time to be granted to the petitioner as tenant, to vacate the accommodation or the award of compensation in lieu of the fact that he carries on a manufacturing operation of sports goods from the premises in question. It is stated by learned Counsel that his client is not present. This was when this court indicated that it was not inclined to admit the writ petition but would consider the request for granting time to vacate the accommodation, provided an undertaking is given to this Court by an affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client is not present to affirm an affidavit.
(3.) For purpose of considering the time which may be granted to the petitioner tenant to vacate the accommodation or the award of compensation, this matter is being sent to the Court of the District Judge, (this may not be misunderstood as on order of remand) for exercising discretion. Should the learned District Judge come to the conclusion that granting time would be an adequate remedy then the petitioner would offer a personal undertaking by an affidavit before this Court offering to vacate the accommodation within the time so set by the learned District Judge Meerut.;