JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-tenant, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the orders dated 25th January, 2001 and 2nd September, 2003, passed by courts below under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-12 and 13, respectively to the writ petition.
2. From the averments of the facts, it is apparent that there is long drawn litigation between the parties with regard to an earlier application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act'. The possession of the shop in dispute has been delivered to the tenant pursuant to the proceeding under Section 24 of 'the Act', which was consequent to the order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act', holding that the building where the shop in dispute is situated, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. Now the present application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' has been filed by the landlady for release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bona fide requirement. During the pendency of the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of "the Act", the landlady died and as per her Will deed dated 25th April, 1997, the grandsons, namely, BriJ Mohan and Amit Kumar became the landlord. Brij Mohan filed an application along with an affidavit after the death of the landlady substituting his own need for the continuance of the proceeding under Section 21(1)W of 'the Act' with the assertion that BriJ Mohan requires shop in dispute for his bona fide requirement and that the petitioner-tenant (respondent in the proceedings) in fact doing no business from the shop in dispute. He is an old man and was doing business of retail sale of lock during the pendency of the litigation, the tenant also died and his tenancy right has been inherited by the widow and son (petitioner herein) and the daughter Smt. Poonam.
3. The prescribed authority after considering the respective case of the rival parties have found that Brij Mohan can continue the proceedings and also the requirement of Brij Mohan is bona fide and thus the need of the landlord is bona fide and on the question of comparative hardship, the prescribed authority found from the materials on record that it is apparent that the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour landlord. Thus, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 25th January, 2001, allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 'the Act' filed by the landlord.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority same pleas were argued as were advanced before the prescribed authority. The appellate authority after considering the materials on record have affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide requirement and also on the question of comparative hardship. Thus, the appellate authority vide its order dated 2nd September, 2003, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant.
5. Before this Court, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant reiterated the same arguments, as were advanced before the prescribed authority as well as before the appellate authority. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash . in my opinion, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not re-appraise the evidence on record in order to arrive at a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. No other arguments have been advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant. In view of the discussions made above, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since the petitioner is carrying on the business in the shop in dispute, therefore he may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the shop in dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as also in the Interest of justice, I direct the order of eviction will not be executed against the petitioner for a period of one year from today, provided :
(i) the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the accommodation in question to the landlord on or before one year from today ;
(ii) the petitioner pay the entire arrears of rent/damages calculated at the rate of rent within three weeks from today, if not already paid, by either depositing the same before the prescribed authority or paying the same to the landlord-respondent and keeps on depositing the future rent/damages by first week of the succeeding month in the manner prescribed above. The amount, if deposited before the prescribed authority by the petitioner-tenants, the same shall be permitted to withdraw by the landlord.
(iii) In the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the landlord to get the order of eviction executed against the petitioner.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.