Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Jauhari, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that one A.K. Tandon was a tenant in the house situate in Civil Lines, of which the wife of the landlord was the owner and if he required the disputed accommodation, it should not have been let out. The Appellate Authority has examined this aspect and it has been found that Lalit Kumar, another son of the landlord, is residing in the said house. The Appellate Authority has recorded a finding that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was insufficient and he requires the said accommodation. This finding is based on the consideration of the total accommodation with respondent No. 2 and considering his family members. I do not find any legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE landlord had made an offer to give accommodation where he was residing in Mohalla Chah Satai but it was not accepted by the petitioner in para 22 of the writ petition, it has been stated that: - - It is submitted that in the instant case the proposal of alternative remedy was quite useless for the purposes of the case of the petitioner and his family. The petitioner now can find out himself some suitable alternative accommodation. 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 the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the disputed premises provided he gives an undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks from today that he will vacate the disputed premises within the time granted by this Court and would hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord -respondent No. 2.;