- (1.) Learned counsel for the parties have made a mention stating urgency. Dr. Sachin Acharya appears for respondent No.1. Service is complete and, at request, parties have been heard finally.
(2.) In keeping with the submissions made at the time of motion hearing on 18th May 2006, Mr. G.R. Goyal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner confines his prayer only for granting reasonable time for vacating the demised premises and prays that he may be allowed two year's time to vacate. Dr. Sachin Acharya appearing for the contesting respondent-landlord submits that the respondent does not intend to contest the prayer for granting of reasonable time to the petitioner; however, the respondent has serious reservations about the prayer for granting as long as two year's time for vacating the demised premises particularly when the landlord himself has purchased the premises for the purpose of his own business and because of the litigation he is deprived of taking up his business for abnormally long time.
(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the facts that the Rent Tribunal has already revised the rent payable to the landlord; and the fact that the landlord has himself purchased this property only on 29.10.2004; and the fact that the petitioner is carrying on his business in the demised premises since 01.01.1980, this Court is of opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for granting of reasonable time may be considered but the period of two years as prayed for appears to be longer than reasonable.;