J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's Counsel and Sri P.C. Srivastava along with Sri Siddharth Pandey, Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) This is a tenant's writ petition challenging the order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the respondent No. 3 moved under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Both the Courts below went into the question of bona fide need of landlady and have recorded concurrent finding that the accommodation in question is bona fide required for the residential purpose of the landlady and her family members. The question of comparative hardship has also been answered objectively by both the Authorities. The writ petition is concluded by finding of fact and is accordingly liable to be dismissed, as no manifest error of law could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the two impugned judgments.
(3.) At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Khanna made a request that some reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacant the premises in question. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, however, urged that proceedings have already remained pending for about nine years and respondent No. 3, is being deprived of her legitimate claim. However, in the circumstances, she has no objection for giving a reasonable time to the petitioner provided he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that he shall vacate the accommodation in question within the time allowed by the Court and shall not induct any other third person therein.;