Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's petition against the order dated 15.1.1999 by which XIthFAdditional District Judge, Meerut has allowed the appeal and the application filed by the land-lady under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act.
(2.) The premises in dispute is being used for non-residential purpose. It is in the ground floor. The land-lady is living in the upper portion of the same house. The land-lady filed an application that her husband is a retired person. They are aged and half portion of the premises be released to them so that they can live there. They further claimed that they required additional accommodation for the family members. For the remaining half portion she said that her husband and son Ashok Kumar want to do business. The Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that need of the land-lady is bona fide on both the counts. The Appellate Court while comparing the hardship has also given finding that greater hardship will be caused to the land-lady in case her application is dismissed. While coming to this finding the Court below has taken into account the fact that the landlady and her husband are aged and it is proper that they should live is the ground floor. Comparing the relative hardship the Appellate Court also took into account the fact that the tenant has already got a shop-cum show room in the Sports Complex Suraj Kund, Meerut. This is at a very small distance from the place where the premises in disputed is situated. These are findings of facts. Nothing has been brought to my notice that these finding of facts are illegal or wrong. They cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) The petition has no merit. It is dismissed. The petitioner is granted six month's time to vacate the premises provided he files an undertaking in the form of affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within one month's from today that he will hand-over the peaceful possession of the premises in dispute. Petition Dismissed. ;