Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) In this writ petition there are concurrent judgments upon the landlord-respondent No. 3 seeking release of an accommodation under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, holding that if the shop in question were not to be released in favour of the landlord it would cause him greater hardship than to the tenant.
(2.) The courts below have considered in detail the evidence which has been adduced by the parties and have come to the conclusion that the application under Section 21 of the Act, aforesaid was bona fide and the shop in question was indeed required by the landlord, thus it was released.
(3.) The learned District Judge, while affirming the decision of the Prescribed Authority that the accommodation in dispute ought to be released, granted six months' time to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the accommodation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner after having argued the matter vehemently accepted the position that the two courts have assessed and weighed the facts and circumstances and the findings are based entirely upon the facts.;