Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.3.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the release application filed by landlord - -Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 8.12.1998 passed by Respondent No. 1, affirming the said order in appeal. Respondent No. 3 is owner and landlord of House No. 23, Mohalla Garhi Gaurvan, Muzaffarnagar. He filed application against the petitioner on the allegation that he is residing in a house situate in the village. He wants to live in the house in dispute which is situate in the city. The petitioner contested the application and it was denied that he needed the disputed accommodation for residential purpose as he is already residing in the village. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application vide order dated 7.3.1996 on the finding that Respondent No. 3 requires the disputed accommodation for his residential purpose. The petitioner filed appeal against this order. The appeal has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 on 8.12.1998.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the release application was filed on 19.8.1994 on the allegation that his daughter was student of B.A. 1st year and was to go from the village to Muzaffarnagar city and son was studying in B.A. final and was to go to Muzaffarnagar city from village. He was also in service and was to go to Muzaffarnagar city. He wanted to reside in the accommodation in dispute which is situate in the city. It is contended that his daughter and son have completed education and Respondent No. 3 has retired from service. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the situation stated in the application does not exist and the application of the landlord -Respondent has wrongly been allowed by the authorities below. It is admitted that Respondent No. 3 has no other house in Muzaffarnagar city. The appellate authority has noted the fact that even though the daughter might have completed the education still even after the retirement Respondent No. 3 requires the disputed house. He keeps ill -health and for this purpose it would be better for him to reside in Muzaffarnagar city where the better medical aid is available. His son has yet not been settled. It was not a mere wish of the landlord to reside in Muzaffarnagar city but it was his genuine need in the facts and circumstances of the case. This finding does not suffer from any manifest error of law. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to vacate the disputed accommodation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted seven months' time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he gives a written undertaking on affidavit before Respondent No. 3 within three weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to Respondent No. 3. Certified copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week. ;