Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) HEARD parties, Counsel. This tenant's petition arising out of proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'. The dispute relates to shop No. 12, Lakshman Ganj, Jhansi which is under occupation of the petitioner as a tenant on behalf of respondent No. 3. The landlord applied for release of the said shop on the ground that the same is bonafide required by him for the extension of clinic of his son who is a Medical Practitioner and has been carrying on his profession in the adjoining shop. The tenant contested the application. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on both the essential issues required to be answered in an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It has been found by both the Courts that the need of the landlord is bonafide and that on a comparison of hardship the landlord was likely to suffer a greater hardship than that of the tenant.
(2.) IT was argued by the petitioner's Counsel that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court below the landlord had also moved an application for release of another accommodation and the property was released. Writ filed against the said order was also dismissed on 16.5.1995. It has rightly been pointed out by the respondents Counsel that it was an application in which release was sought for residential purpose and it related to first floor accommodation. From the mere fact that a residential portion stands released in favour of the landlord for the use of his family, it cannot be said that the need alleged by the landlord in the instant application stood satisfied. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is based on cogent and valid reasons and requires no interference by this Court. For the above reasons, this writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then contended that some reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioner to make alternative arrangements. Respondents Counsel pointed out that the application for release was filed in the year 1981 and even after a lapse of 16 years the landlord has not been able to obtain possession of the shop though the same was urgently required for his son. In the circumstances, petitioner is allowed three months time to vacate the shop in question provided in this regard he gives an undertaking in writing on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days from today. On an undertaking on affidavit being filed before the Prescribed Authority within the aforesaid period of 15 days to the effect that the petitioner shall hand over to the landlord vacant possession of the disputed shop by 31.10.97, he shall not be dispossessed in pursuance of the impugned order till 31.10.97. However, if no such undertaking is filed, it shall be open for the Prescribed Authority to get the possession of the shop delivered to the respondents forthwith in accordance with law.;