Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12801 of 2018 Petitioner :- Parvinder Kumar Respondent :- Ashwani Kumar Sarraf And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner / tenant challenging the order dated 30.5.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority / Ist Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hapur in P.A. Case No. 3 of 2011 and the judgment and order dated 17.4.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge / F.T.C.-IInd, Hapur in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant has tried to show that the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have not considered the specific averment made by the petitioner in paragraphs 6 & 35 of this petition that adjoining to the shop in question. Shop nos. 2 & 3 are lying vacant and the landlord can very well establish his son in the same in independent business.
However, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out the findings recorded in paragraph nos. 25, 26 & 27 of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30.5.2017 and paragraph nos. 11 & 12 of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.4.2018 that this contention was raised by the petitioner / tenant before the two learned Courts below and it was found on the basis of judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court that the landlord is the best judge of how to use his property and the tenant cannot dictate terms as to which accommodation has to be used by the landlord for which purpose.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out from the orders impugned that both the learned Courts below have found that alternative accommodation is available to the tenant and he shall not suffer any hardship in shifting his business to the alternative accommodation.
Since, there are concurrent findings of two learned Courts below and the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any perversity in the appreciation of facts by the learned Trial Court and by the Appellate Authority, this petition is dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for sometime to be granted to him to vacate the shop in question. The application under Section 21(1)(a) was filed by the landlord in 2011 and the tenant has been in possession of the shop in question for the past seven years. Six months time has prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant cannot therefore be granted by this Court.
The tenant is allowed only three months to vacate the shop in question. He shall give an undertaking before the learned Prescribed Authority for delivering vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlord on 30.8.2018. The petitioner shall tender rent month to month within seven days of its accrual to the landlord for the time he remains in occupation of the shop in question.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Arif