JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, who is tenant of the accommodation in question, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.12.2005, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant has been dismissed by the appellate authority against the order of the prescribed authority dated 6.11.2000, by which the prescribed authority under the Act has allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlord, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-9 and 4, respectively to the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that admittedly Pradeep Rastogi was the landlord and after his death, his wife Smt. Sushma Rastogi, the respondent No. 3 in this petition and her two minor children becomes the owner and landlord of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, in which Nabi Ahmad was the tenant and after his death, the petitioner and his brother Rafiq Ahmad inherited the tenancy and became tenant. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the prescribed authority on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the accommodation in question for her personal requirement. It is further asserted that landlord is owner of shop No. 8, situated at Baburam Market, Badaun in which earlier Nabi Ahmad was the tenant and after his death, the petitioner and his brother Rafiq Ahmad became the tenant. Nabi Ahmad was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 30 per month to Pradeep Rastogi up to 31.5.1985, but after his death, present petitioner did not pay any rent and is depositing the same in the Court. It is further asserted that after death of Pradeep Rastogi, who was doing the work of Goldsmith, on 9.8.1997, she is getting Rs. 1,000 as rent and except this, there is no other source of livelihood. The landlord further asserted that petitioner is a barber who often goes out of the shop at the residence of the people and the shop in question remains closed. She therefore prayed that since she has no other source of livelihood, therefore the shop in question may be released in her favour in which she will do business of goldsmith to augment her Income and to look after her-children's future and she will not let out the same to any other person.
3. This application was opposed by petitioner by filing the written statement, wherein he accepted that earlier his father Nabi Ahmad was tenant of Siddha Gopal and was paying the rent to him, who was father-in-law of the applicant and after his death he and his brother Rafiq Ahmad became the tenant, but in the year 1991-92 Rafiq Ahmad died and since then he is in occupation of the accommodation in dispute. It is further asserted by petitioner-tenant that Siddha Gopal had four sons, but Pradeep Rastogi used to receive the rent of the shops and when Pradeep Rastogi refused to accept the rent which he had sent through money order, he and his brother Rafiq Ahmad instituted a case being Misc. Case No. 94 of 1986 and start to deposit the same under Section 30(1) of 'the Act' in the Court. It is contended that landlord has at least 20 shops in said Babu Ram market, whereas the petitioner has six members in his family and if the landlord wants to start Goldsmith business, she can easily do this in her house. The petitioner further contended that actually landlord has no need of the accommodation in question, she wants to let out the same on higher rent to someone else, therefore the need of the landlord is neither bona fide, nor genuine. In rebuttal, the respondent contended that after the death of Siddha Gopal, in an internal arrangement the property was partitioned and the accommodation in question came in the share of Pradeep Rastogi and since she has taken diploma in Beautician course, therefore if the same is released in her favour, she will do the business of artificial Jewellery and also business of beauty parlour as the shop in dispute is situated at Civil Lines.
4. The prescribed authority on the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that it is admitted fact that the petitioner is doing barber job in the shop in question and he often used to go out at the residence of customers. The prescribed authority further found that on the basis of the Misc. case instituted by petitioner and his brother Rafiq Ahmad under Section 30(1) of 'the Act', it is established that Pradeep Rastogi was landlord and earlier the rent was being paid by the petitioner to Pradeep Rastogi and further after family partition, the shop in question came in his share. On the question of bona fide requirement, the prescribed authority have recorded finding that the need of the landlord is bona Jide as after the death of husband of landlord, she has no source of income, except the rent, which is so meagre and less that it is sufficient for any one to survive looking to the fact that landlord has two children. So far as the tilt of the comparative hardship is concerned, the prescribed authority recorded finding in favour of the landlord and allowed the release application filed by the landlords vide order dated 6.11.2000 and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the accommodation in question.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2000, passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of 'the Act' before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority same arguments were advanced as were advanced before the prescribed authority. The appellate authority found that the point raised by petitioner-tenant that in the market where the shop in question is situated, there are shops of spare parts of car-bus, body-maker of car bus etc. and in this market there is no shop of goldsmith or artificial Jewellery, therefore it is not suitable for the same, is not correct, as the shop in question is situated at Civil Lines. The appellate authority further found that in fact the tenant has not made any effort to find out any alternative shop after filing of release application by the landlord, whereas on the basis of evidence on record it is found that the shop in question remain closed often as the tenant used to go to the residence of the customers. On the question of bona fide, the appellate authority dealt with the entire peace of evidence and pleadings of the parties and ultimately affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority that the need of the landlord is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship again the appellate authority affirmed the findings of the prescribed authority, thus the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant vide order dated 20.12.2005.
6. Before this Court also, the petitioner-tenant tries to advance the same arguments as were advanced before the prescribed authority and the appellate authority. On the question of bona fide, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant made an attempt that this Court should reappraise and re-evaluate the evidence on record, but in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash , wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an appellate court by re-appraising or re-evaluating the evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Lastly it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since the tenant is doing business in the accommodation in question, therefore he may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the Interest of justice, I direct that the petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in question pursuant to the impugned orders for a period of six months from today, provided:
(1) petitioner-tenant furnish an undertaking before the prescribed authority within one month from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlords on or before the expiry of six months' from today ; and (2) petitioner-tenant pay to the landlord or deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already paid to the landlords or deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within one month from today and continues to pay or deposit the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till the expiry of six months' period from today, whichever is earlier. The landlord will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by the petitioner-tenant.
(3) In the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondents-landlords to get the order executed.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.