- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Dr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Respondent No. 3 is landlord of the premises in dispute which is in the tenancy of the petitioner. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short) for eviction of tenant on the ground that the premises in dispute is bona fide required for establishing a Nursing Home. This application has been allowed by the Court below on 6-5-1998. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents. Sri Navin Sinha has argued that the landlord is M. B. B. S. in 1982 and he ex ecuted a power of attorney in favour of his brother Anil Kumar Gupta in 1989. There after an application was filed by Anil Kumar through his power of attorney. It is on this application that the impugned order has been passed on 19th July, 1999 and 6th May, 1998 by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at present landlord Dr. Sunil Kumar Gupta is living in U. S. A. and there is noth ing to show that he will come back in India and want to start a Nursing Home in the premises in dispute. It is true that there is no personal affidavit of the landlord that he wants to come back in India and will start a clinic here but in view of the fact that the Courts below have held that the premises in dispute is suitable for opening clinic and in view of the fact that the Courts below have given a finding that the petitioner has already shifted his business to different place at Lahartara and has started1 business in the name of Roma Builders and Promoters Ltd. and the busi ness to be carried in the premises in dis pute is running in loss. I do not think it is a fit case for interference. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. However, the petitioners may not be evicted from the premises in dispute for a period of one year from today provided petitioners filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within one month before the Prescribed Authority concerned that he will handover the peace ful possession of the premises in dispute within one year and pay the rent for the period of his occupation.
(3.) WITH these observations the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;