- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is tenant's writ petition against the order dated 1-5-1991 and order dated 31-10-1998 allowing the landlord's application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in respect of the premises in dispute which is a shop.
(2.) THE landlord filed an application for his personal need and for the need of his sons. Both the Courts below have come to the findings that the need of the landlord is bonafide and after considering the hardship the Courts below have held that the greater hardship will be caused to landlord in case his application is rejected. While considering these facts the Prescribed Authority has taken into ac count the fact that the tenant has already had a vacant shop in the name of the wife on his disposal over which he can shift his business. Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that affidavit of one Keshar Khan was filed before the appel late Court to show that he is the tenant of the shop which is alleged to be the owned by the wife of the tenant. This affidavit has also been taken into account by the appel late Court. I see no reason to interfere in the orders of the Courts below. The writ peti tion has no merit. It is dismissed. No order as to cost. The petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he files an undertaking in the form pf an affidavit within one month from today before the Prescribed Authority that he will hand-over the peaceful possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord within six months. The affidavit will also contain the undertaking to the effect that he will also pay the entire arrears and the rent for the period he will be in possession of the shop within the same period. With these observations the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;